Talk:Objectivism and libertarianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Objectivists are not libertarians

To quote below: "Libertarianism simply holds that the NAP is true, without regard to why." Therefore, Objectivist simply are not Libertarians. It is package dealing to claim Objectivists are Libertarians. An essential part of Libertarianism is not regarding the why and an essential part of Objectivism is to regard the why. The two are mutually exclusive. Accidental agreement on any one or several concretes is just that. Karbinski 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are mammals, but there is a distinction betweens "humans" and "mammals". Objectivists are libertarians, but there is a distinction! In fact, this issue reminds me of objections to evolution based on a revulsion to the concept that humans are animals. "I'm no animal! I'm civilized!" Could it be that Objectivists are the "civilized" libertarians? Ha, ha!

In particular, Objectivism is derived from an ethical basis holding that the NAP is moral. So are some forms of libertarianism, but not all. Libertarianism simply holds that the NAP is true, without regard to why.

As to how to put this into the article, let me think about it. But I think it has to point out the "common denominator" between the two: the NAP. --Serge 29 June 2005 01:17 (UTC)

The latest version is very good:

"Both philosophies have similar political goals and are united by what libertarians call the non-aggression principle: both philosophies oppose the initiation of force, though sometimes for different reasons. While orthodox Objectivists believe in a sharp distinction between the two philosophies, others like Nathaniel Branden argue that Objectivism is a form of libertarianism and that distinctions between the two rely on a misunderstanding of libertarianism."

Thinking our loud here... I believe it would be helpful to also convey the notion that libertarianism is more inclusive than Objectivism. That is, there are many doors into libertarianism, allegiance to the NAP being but one of them. Being an anarchist is another, which does not necessarily require allegiance to the NAP. Conversely, Objectivism also has many doors, but its doors are aligned in a series: you have to go through all of them to be an Objectivist. In other words, by accepting the NAP, you have met one of the requirements for being an Objectivist, but you have also automatically become a libertarian, because by doing so you have fulfilled one of the avenues to libertarianism. Not sure what the best way would be to say this... --Serge 29 June 2005 17:00 (UTC)

"Being an anarchist is another, which does not necessarily require allegiance to the NAP." Don't forget non-NAP minarchists like classical liberals, et al.70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer[reply]

Some more food for thought, from an Objectivist page on this topic:

"Libertarianism is the political position that all human relationships should be voluntary, i.e. not subject to the initiation of force by another person. Inasmuch as this is also part of the Objectivist politics, Objectivism is a libertarian philosophy. Not all libertarian thinking is compatible with Objectivism, and some libertarians promote philosophical ideas that would destroy liberty if put into practice, such as skepticism, ethical subjectivism, and anarchism. But the libertarian movement in general is a positive force for political change, one to which Objectivists have valuable moral and epistemological knowledge to contribute and one from which Objectivists can learn about the politics, economics, and history of freedom.
...
The principle of non-initiation of force was popularized by Ayn Rand, and it certainly is a key aspect of the Objectivism. To this extent, the Objectivist politics is libertarian." (emphasis added)

I recommend reading the whole thing. It's a good article.

On libertarian: Kindly observe that Rand herself created the conceptual framework adopted under the banner of "libertarian" on April 17, 1947. (I trust this quote is fair use...) "...agree that no men or number of men have the right to *initiate* the use of force against any human being... that would achieve a perfect Utopia on earth, that would include all the moral code we need." (Letters... p. 364) translator 09:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." –H. Spencer, fifty years earlier. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by zenohockey (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Besides, how could a letter, presumably sent to a private individual, be adopted by a whole political movement? --zenohockey 02:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone might want to look up John Locke, he started the whole shebang.70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer[reply]

Objectivists are libertarians, by definition

There is nothing to debate about this point. At its essence, libertarianism is based on the principle that no one has the right to initiate the use of coercive force against others. This is fundamental to the definition of libertarianism. Whether one's basis for believing in this principle is moral or utilitarian, is immaterial to libertarianism. Technically, anyone who believes in the libertarian principle, for whatever reason, is a libertarian, and anyone who does not, is not. Since anyone who believes that uninitiated coercive force may be justified cannot be an Objectivist, it follows logically that all Objectivists are libertarians. This is a matter of definition, not debate, and I believe it should be stated clearly in this article. Serge 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People who are obsessed with "correct definitions" are usually not worth debating, by definition. I don't have to cite sources because I'm just right. Rhobite 19:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I agree people who are obsessed with "correct definitions" are usually not worth debating. That's not what this is about, unless you're saying that libertarianism is NOT in essence based on the NAP. I'm just going by the definition stated in the Wiki page for libertarianism. Based on that definition, I'm simply saying that Objectivists are libertarians, whether they like it or not. --Serge 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serge: While we both know that libertarianism and Objectivism have a lot in common, and while I find Nathaniel Branden's arguments on the subject convincing, the fact is that hard-core Objectivists refuse to be called "libertarians." Your focus on the definition is far less interesting than what's already in the article, which discusses the views of people other than you and me. Dave (talk) 22:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Some people might not like being called people, but they're still people. And hard-core Objectivists can "refuse" to be called "libertarians" all they want (which puts their objectivity in question, by the way), but based on the Wiki definition, and pure reason and logic, an Objectivist is a libertarian (though likely not a Libertarian). What the definition of libertarian is might be a matter of opinion. But if we take the current Wiki definition, a philosophy based on the NAP, as a given, then it follows logically that Objectivists are libertarians is a fact, not a matter of opinion. I'm pretty new to this, but I thought being factual, rather than capitulating to a particular biased POV, was fairly important here. --Serge 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fact: Rand and Peikoff say Objectivism is not a form of libertarianism. Opinion: They're wrong. We provide evidence for that opinion, but the article gains nothing (certainly not neutrality) by promoting it explicitly.
If your sort of argument became broadly accepted, then people could post "facts" that fetuses have rights or that they have no rights, that God exists or does not exist, that the Iraq war was absoloutely legal or illegal, or that Apple computers are objectively better than PCs or vice-versa. Clearly, those sorts of "facts" are not as useful or neutral as stating the arguments for both sides would be.
There is no "wiki definition." The first few sentences of the libertarianism article are a summary, not a syllogism. This article gains nothing by taking a stand one way or the other, and if it does, then its objectivity is called into question. There's enough information here for the reader to conclude that Objectivists have more in common with libertarians than they care to admit. And if libertarianism is defined as orthodox Objectivists choose to define it, then there are clear differences. I don't see why you're more qualified than the experts that disagree about this or why the article needs to take a stand on this pissing match, when the quotes from Branden essentially settle it. Dave (talk) 03:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about it for a few days. With all due respect, it does not appear to be logical to me. Of course, I agree it is a fact that "Rand and Peikoff say Objectivism is not a form of libertarianism." But I also think that it can be shown by syllogism that all Objectivists are libertarians. I'll give two very similar examples.

  1. Anyone who does not believe that God exists is an atheist (by definition).
  2. All Objectivists do not believe that God exists.
  3. Therefore, all Objectivists are atheists.

No argument with that, right? Now, consider:

  1. Anyone who believes in the NAP is a libertarian (by definition).
  2. All Objectivists believe in the NAP.
  3. Therefore, all Objectivists are libertarians.

Note that this does not mean that all libertarians believe in the NAP, or that all libertarians who do believe in the NAP believe it for the moral reasons which Objectivists do (many libertarians believe in the NAP for utilitarian reasons) which is one of the issues Objectivists have with libertarianism, however irrelevant that fact may be to the validity of this syllogism.

You know, just because all Objectivists are atheists does not mean it's accurate or meaningful to say that Objectivism is a form of atheism. Similarly, my point is that while all Objectivists (whether they like it or not) are libertarians, that does not necessarily mean Objectivism is a form of libertarianism. What do you think? -- Serge 28 June 2005 17:39 (UTC)

I think that your last paragraph is a very good point. I'm not sure that the NAP is all there is to libertarianism, though; pacifists, for example, would not ever initiate force, but are not necessarily libertarians, since they may not support property etc.
I've found that it's good to be wary of syllogisms, because there are a lot of ways they can go wrong. For example, see Syllogistic fallacy for a short list.
Given your current thoughts on the issue, would you still like to see the article changed? Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 20:50 (UTC)
Believing in the NAP implies support for using coercion in response to initiated coercion (typically as in self-defense, or in order to imprison an individual found guilty of violating the NAP). Pacifists do not support use of coercion in response to initiated coercion. Therefore, pacifists do not believe in the NAP.
Do pacifists support the use of coercion in response to "coercion in response to initiated coercion"? If not, then they *do* believe in the NAP. Refusing to use any force, whether aggresive or defensive, does logically mean refusing to use aggressive force. GrandTurion (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to libertarianism than the NAP, of course. But it is the core principle. To illustrate, on its membership form the LP requires all members to sign the following pledge testifying their allegiance to the NAP: I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. It is the one and only requirement for proving one is a (small-l) libertarian in order to join the (big-l) Libertarian Party.
I'm aware of the possibility of committing a logical fallacy when using syllogisms carelessly. Of course, this possibility does not preclude a syllogism from being logically valid. Are you contending that the "all Objectivists are libertarians" syllogism (above) contains a syllogistic fallacy? If so, what do you think it is?
Yes, I think it's important to point out that, from a NPOV, Objectivists are in fact libertarians, regardless of any non-objective (isn't that ironic?) protests to the contrary, not only in this wiki, but also in the relevant section in the libertarian wiki that references this one. -- Serge 28 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)
Serge... I guess it is years later, but I just cam upon this thread by you. It is amazing. I recently visited a BBS for Rand adherents. I asked if anyone could give me some examples of positions and/or stands that Rand adherents would take that would differ from libertarian positions. Well, i learned the hard way that Rand adherents like to play word games, and I was quite harshly attacked and ridiculed for even asking such a question. So it is interesting to see this back forth by you and others where you have encountered the same strident argument that Rand adherents are not libertarians. Well, in any event, for others that come across this thread... BEWARE & BE WARNED! I found Rand adherents very angry people. That like to argue. Seems best to just avoid them. The good news is they are an amazingly small percentage of the population. Webulite 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicule is not a proper form of argumentation. I like to argue, I'm very audacious but I always try to maintain a certain level of respect. After all, 1) people are human and deserve to be treated with decency and 2) I want to be able to argue with them some more. Objectivists call themselves rationalists but they refuse to debate their views.70.172.198.145 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer[reply]

For the following to be true:
  1. Anyone who believes in the NAP is a libertarian (by definition).
  2. All Objectivists believe in the NAP.
  3. Therefore, all Objectivists are libertarians.

the first two premises must be true. The very first premise is false. The definition of libertarian is not anyone who believes in the NAP. An essential part of being a libertarian is to believe in the NAP as the foundation of politics. Objectivists and libertarians occupy mutually exclusive space within the big circle of those who believe in the NAP. The libertarian space is defined by the philosophical principles of libertarianism. Likewise, the Objectivist space is defined by the principles of Objectivism. According to Objectivism, politics is _wholly determined_ by Objectivist ethics. According to libertarianism there is only the NAP at root.

  1. Anyone who is a libertarian believes in the NAP and accepts that the NAP is a sufficient and a proper foundation for all political thought. That is, any individual ethical beliefs are irrelevant so long as the NAP is believed.
  2. All Objectivists believe that the NAP is not a sufficient and proper foundation for all political thought
  3. Therefore, there is no libertarian that is at the same time an Objectivist
  4. Therefore, no Objectivist is a libertarian

Note that if someone argues that the NAP derives from ethical set of ideas X (where X is or is not Objectivist ethics) and that the set of ideas X must be upheld throughout all political thought, they are removing themselves from the libertarian camp. A libertarian would have no need for the set of ideas X, they have the NAP. Karbinski (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"all Objectivists are atheists" holds true as long as there is an unambigous definition of "atheist". Libertarians and objectivists however don't necessarily have the same definition of the NAP. Agreed, libertarians themselves might not all agree on the definition either. But if the general differences between the two groups are big enough, then it's not at all obvious that all objectivists are libertarians. For instance intellectual property (e.g. the main character blowing up a building in *The Fountainhead*, would that not qualify as aggression for a libertarian?). Another key point is that respecting the NAP simply means "not being a criminal", that is, not belonging in jail (or its equivalent) in a libertarian society. Millions of people can live their whole lives respecting the NAP, does that make them libertarian? A libertarian is someone who wishes for everyone to respect the NAP, for those who don't to be jailed (or otherwise protected from), and for this rule to be more consistently applied across society. Objectivists, on the other hand, wish for society to share their whole philosophy, of which their version of the NAP is just a part. And an essential point here is that they don't even consider the libertarian wish as a first step towards that. (Ayn Rand consistently voted for anyone *but* libertarian presidential candidates, even though "objectively" their platform was much, much closer to her own positions than that of any other candidate.) GrandTurion (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing Big-L vs. Small-L libertarianism

I think it's important to distinguish between big-L and small-L libertarianism. This article as currently written seems to interchange the two as if they are one and the same. Small-l libertarianism is simply the belief in the libertarian principle, for whatever reason. Big-L Libertarianism is a reference to the organization, the political Libertarian party, its platform, and the members that constitute it. Very different. While all Objectivists and Libertarians are libertarians (by definition - see above), many libertarians are neither Objectivists nor even Libertarians. I believe Rand's issues were not with the small-L libertarianism but with the stated beliefs of the particular adherents of big-L Libertarianism at the time. If you interpret her arguments in that context (except the ones objecting to the term itself for aesthetic reasons), they make more sense. Serge 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the Big-L versus Small-L distinction. Objectivists choose to differentiate themselves from libertarians (or from "non-Objectivist libertarians," if you prefer), so the article (which is largely about that distinction) needs to use it. If there are any examples where the capitalization is messed up, I'd be happy to fix them, but I don't think that's the issue.

Rand's issues with libertarians extended beyond the aesthetic issue of what to call it. She believed that small-l libertarians were anarchists and opposed them for that reason. She believed that small-l libertarians were amoral and opposed them for that reason. Including quotes from Branden on the subject is a far more convincing way of writing than compiling assertions by anonymous Wikipedia editors. Dave (talk) 22:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

What Rand believed about small-l libertarians, and the fact that she personally did not want to be labeled a libertarian, has nothing to do with the question of whether she and other Objectivists are in fact libertarians per the currently accepted Wiki definition. Those points are completely and totally irrelevant from the NPOV perspective that we are supposed to be representing when we write and review Wiki articles. No? --Serge 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objection

"However, the movement continues to regard its non-aggression "axiom" as the linchpin of libertarianism."

Newsflash for the LP propagandist who wrote this, the NAP is not accepted by all libertarians, only by the dogmatists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to give my name70.172.198.145 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sun Stealer[reply]

Many Libertarians would argue that the one, singular, defining characteristic of Libertarianism is belief in the Zero (Non)-Aggression Principle. That means anyone who doesn't accept it is, by definition, not a Libertarian. Melkolmr (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True; but if you believe in the NAP - that nobody may initiate agression - you must perforce be an anarchist. Objectivists (and most self-professed libertarians) are not anarchists; hence not libertarians by this definition. Ergo, whatever "libertarian" means, if it includes non-anarchists it can't mean acceptance of the NAP (maybe it's acceptance of the OOOMIAP - the Only One Organization May Initiate Agression Principle?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.165.200 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info box obscures part of text

The box on the right hand side that begins, "Part of the series on Libertarianism" blocks part of the text on its left. In my case it blocks one word (realize) of the paragraph on Nathaniel Branden. I have no idea how to fix it. Koro Neil (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged some of the boxes and images to fix the problem. I hope this helped. --D. Monack | talk 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what they really think of each other

On 2 January 2009, I added these two links to the article.

Two days later these were removed by Kraftlos.

I think it adds to the article--what each thinks of the other.
Kraftlos might think it's spamming.
What say ya'll?
Yartett (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links were removed because they are links to open wiki's, which is specifically mentioned in WP:LINKSTOAVOID (see #12). If you can find a similar topic on a more stable and/or reliable source, that would be a different matter entirely. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it refers to "Links normally to be avoided": implying exceptions. I suggest that an exception should be made because both wikis and the articles share the same name, offer their perspectives from readily identifiable groups (e.g. what does Conservapedia mean by "conservative," whereas Ltn and Obj are more identifiable), and I figure that it does contribute to the article with minimal space and attention used.Yartett (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with every wikipedia rule, if a convincing case can be made that the inclusion of the link is vital to the understanding of the subject and that it meets WP:LINKS requirements that the exceptional site link have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" than a link to an open wiki might be allowed. However, by looking at the recent changes on those wiki's neither appear to have a substantial number of editors: the liberatarian wiki appears to have about 2-3 active editors and The objectivist wiki has about 3 editors with only five edits in the last six months. I don't believe it it necessary for the understanding of the subject. What purpose does this link serve other than to get people to visit those wikis? What is covered there that isn't or can't be covered here? Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, you can't claim an exceptional case without presenting an exceptional need for an exception. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one appears to have joined in the alleged canvassing, and the user making the charge has been inactive since the day after making it, the matter ought to be able to be put to rest.-RLCampbell (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that there was no discussion of the comment for over seven months means it was at rest. :-) Anyhow, there was an Arbitration Committee case opened the day after the above comment. The ruling back in March included the canvassing charges (among a bunch of other misbehavior). The case was opened related to the Ayn Rand article, but the comment above was related to the same issues, as were similar comments that you've noticed on other Objectivism-related talk pages. ArbCom only put the ruling announcement on the talk page of the article that the case was first opened against, but I think you can rest assured that the matter was handled for all the related pages as well. FWIW, the charge of canvassing was upheld and the accused editor was topic-banned (broadly construed, so it would include this article also) for 1 year. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted *Neolibertarianism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.159.231 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV and No Ref Tags

Removed these from '07. If still POV issues, should be put on a section basis, don't see discussion of same above. The article subject is a POV derivative so exposition of that the proper content. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for removal. Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Elapsed time is not a resolution. If you feel these tags are placed in error, begin the discussion on this Talk page, and then after the discussion is resolved take action. XINOPH | TALK 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of disagreement here on the talk page, but no specific discussion of POV problems with the article itself. Binarybits (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated

The following sentence strikes me as inappropriate: "Valliant, at one time a student of Rothbard, reports Rothbard once admitted that his critique of Rand was exaggerated."

Valliant is not a disinterested party, so it seems to me that we shouldn't mention this at all and instead let Rothbard's views speak for themselves. If we are going to include this, I think "claims" would be more appropriate than "reports," to make clear the hearsay nature of the allegation. Binarybits (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence also seems like this might qualify as a primary source under WP:PSTS. Binarybits (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is now moot, because Valliant's book has been judged a non-reliable source. At present it is referred to only as one of the negative responses to The Passion of Ayn Rand.-RLCampbell (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Could you all please slow down on the editing. If you have a dispute you need to stop editing and discuss it here after 2 reverts. Its not acceptable to fill up almost a whole page of history in one series of edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand's view of libertarians

This article gives a very one-sided and over-simplified account of Rand's view of libertarians and libertarianism. It's true that she became extremely hostile to them, but that was a later development (and was at least in part the result of her personal hostility to Rothbard). Earlier on, Rand did have some positive things to say about libertarians; to omit all reference to that and focus only on the negative views she expressed later is to give a distorted account of her thinking. UserVOBO (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The souce is from the Ayn Rand Institue, if you have anything else, please post it here.
I'll be removing the disputed template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.132.56 (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism as a form of Libertarianism?

Regarding the sentence in the Anarchism section: "Some libertarians are anarchists, believing that the essential functions of government, such as courts and national defense, can be provided by private firms."

The claim that "[s]ome libertarians are anarchists" is contentious. Thus, I have added a WP:Citation Needed tag. BlueRobe (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply moving a debate on Libertarianism to another venue. Citations have already been provided there --Snowded TALK 05:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

FYI
 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism and Objectivism → Libertarianism and objectivism –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, these are both generic, common terms, not propriety or commercial terms, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In this context Objectivism refers to a particular philosophy - the one espoused by Ayn Rand. We use capital-O Objectivism consistently, as far as I can tell, in all references to it in the text of the relevant articles. It's not a generic, common term in this context. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 October 2011
  • Oppose. This request seems to be based on a lack of understanding of the subject of the article. 'Objectivism' in this instance is the proper name of a particular philosophy, which is routinely capitalized in source material and in Wikipedia articles. It should not be confused with the generic term 'objectivism'. --RL0919 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again. There is a differentiation between "objectivism", a general class of philosophic positions, and "Objectivism." This article deals with the latter. JCScaliger (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She upcased everything (cheap boosterism, if you ask me). Like Individualism. Does that mean we have to follow her on that one too? Is there some other use of objectivism I'm missing here, that requires her brand to be distinguished with a cap? And why is there an article named Objectivism (Ayn Rand), then? Should her name be attached to this one? Or does she own libertarianism? Tony (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are other uses of the word 'objectivism' that are not specifically Rand's philosophy. She drew on the traditions of metaphysical objectivism and named her philosophy accordingly, but Objectivism encompasses many specific positions that are not just objectivism. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – none of the above objections are based on any evidence in sources. If you look at book n-grams, you find nearly half lowercase in "Rand's objectivism", and a recent trend (mostly in the 1990s) toward "Rand's Objectivism". That is not evidence for a proper name, but rather for capitalization for emphasis or promotion. Per MOS:CAPS, we don't do that here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your n-gram evidence suggests that Objectivist is the dominant spelling, especially recently. The capitalization behavior of independent sources like the New York Times seems to confirm that capitalization is the dominant, if not universal, practice. (I count 15 "Objectivisms" and 5 "objectivisms" on the first two pages of Google results). You're saying the NYTimes capitalizes 75 percent of the time in an effort to promote Rand's philosophical views? Binarybits (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Dominant" is questionable, but in any case is not how WP decides whether to capitalize or not. We only capitalize proper names, while other styles capitalize for emphasis, for promotion of their own ideas, etc. Yes, even the NYT may use such a style, whatever their reasoning. But when I look at your link, it looks to me like the NYT mostly uses lower case, while the upper cases uses are in titles, in letters to the editor, and in columns and blogs of individuals who may want to use that style for their own reasons. Do you see places where the NYT uses it capitalized in news articles? If not, I expect you'll be changing your position, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds are copy edited by Times staff just like news articles, so I don't see how the distinction is relevant. Binarybits (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is inconsistent on this. Sometimes they capitalize (e.g., here and here), while other times they do not. Non-news reliable sources, such as non-wiki encyclopedia articles about Rand (see here and here for two online examples) and mainstream books about her by non-Objectivists (e.g., Goddess of the Market and Ayn Rand and the World She Made), usually use the capital. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to keep in mind with the n-gram hits that it is counting most things in headings and titles on the "Rand's Objectivism" side, like in this book that added 3 hits to the upper-case count. When it's this close, the ones in sentences are probably dominated by lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's note that it's perfectly consistent to say that Rand's objectivism is called Objectivism. That is, "Objectivism" is how the form of objectivism advocated by Rand, or Rand's objectivism, if you will, is called. So, finding usage of uncapitalized "objectivism" in the form of "Rand's objectivism" in the sources does not support the use of uncapitalized objectivism in this title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the phrase could be used in this way. Even with that, the n-gram shows capitalization as the more common use in the searched sources, with usage in the last 20 years routinely favoring capitalization by 2-to-1 or more. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. If you think the majority usage in most recent books is determinative, you can look at that: here. I find 22 of 40 most recent books use it in lower case. You are abusing the n-grams in exactly the way I tried t caution against. And none of them are like the case B2C made up, so I expect he'll be changing his position now. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Libertarians are willing to work with libertarians?

The sentence "Some libertarians have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement" seems to say that some libertarians are willing to work with the libertarian movement... which is true, but nearly tautological and not really on-topic. I suspect the intent was to say either that "some Objectivists have argued..." or "Objectivists should be willing to work with..." or maybe libertarians are willing to work "with the Objectivist movement." Does anyone know which? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eostrom (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, so I changed it. I suspect that it originally said "Objectivists" but some ARI Objectivist objected (no pun intented) to Kelley being called an Objectivist. The end result was, as you pointed out, a confusing mess. Kelley is an Objectivist, although not in quite the same way as the ARI camp. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the sock puppet said...

An alleged sock puppet had their edit reverted.[1] Looking at the contents, they seem quite accurate and well-sourced. Regardless of their origin, I see no good reason to exclude them. Would anyone object if I reverted them back in? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just revert. There are problems with the sourcing used. The first source cited is a dictionary definition of anarchism, which is not a useful source because it says nothing about anyone's attitude towards Rand or Objectivism. The blog post linked for Keven Carson is about Rand's view of objective value, not about any of the claims made in the added material. The web page from David Friedman is also about a different topic. The Rebirth of Reason source is dubious as a reliable source. Some of the claims being made can probably be supported from other sources, but we should not put back in the poorly sourced version from the edit war. --RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you come up with better citations? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapprochement

What about something like this for the recent developments:

Rapprochement

In 2011, Yaron Brook, President of the Ayn Rand Institute, spoke at the Foundation for Economic Education (http://www.fee.org/news/ayn-rands-moral-defense-of-capitalism/). He was a keynote speaker at FreedomFest 2012 (http://freedomfest.com/2012/keynote-speakers/). He appeared on ReasonTV on July 26, 2012 (http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/26/yaron-brook-ayn-rand-vs-big-government).

Ayn Rand Institute board member John A. Allison IV spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012 (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/self-ownership-financial-crisis), contributed "The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis" to Cato's Letter (http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv10n1.pdf), and spoke at Cato's Monetary Conference in November 2011 (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/fedas-destruction-wealth).

On June 25, 2012, Cato Institute announced that Allison would become its next president. In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian." (http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=news&id=209) In communication to employees, he wrote, "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists." (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/30/cato_shrugged_panic_about_an_incoming_leader_s_admiration_for_ayn_rand.html) Allison said he took the position at Yaron Brook's behest. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeremylott/2012/08/how-objectionable-is-john-allisons-objectivism/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.155.98 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. perspective, global perspectives, & American Libertarian Party similarities.

The article had a quaintly exclusively American-centric point of view, seemingly oblivious to libertarian perspectives elsewhere. So I was Bold and noted that much of what was described was a U.S. influenced perspective, (as was Rand,) hinted at divergent global perspectives of libertarianism (as context, -and this needs expanding), plus noted similarities to the American Libertarian Party platform which might not be noticed by the obviously American authors in the same way that fish cannot see water. (This is not to deny there are some differences.) More precisely, characteristically LP (Party) assumptions and values are being implied as generically libertarian. From a global perspective it seems silly to be discussing American Objectivism while 1) excluding the American LP, and 2) seemingly silently equating the LP to (mythical) generic libertarianism.

It is my opinion that a whole new section should discuss this if this topic is to be taken seriously by the world, as more than a blindly provincial or self-shouting perspective from a kid raised alone in a cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.82.20 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2,000+ byte change was deleted. I'll repost the lead section part of it here, for possible discussion, editing, and possible repost:

Russian-American Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1] However, the views of Rand and her philosophy among prominent libertarians are mixed and many Objectivists are hostile to non-Objectivist libertarians in general.[2]

Within the context of Ayn Rand it is particularly important to distinguish between "small L libertarians" (all libertarians in general,) and the "big L Libertarians" of the American Libertarian Party when generalizing about philosophy. Particularly in the United States there are libertarians, and there are Libertarians, often discussed within the same topic. This is important when comparing libertarianism with Objectivism because the American Libertarian Party outlook, as defined by their party platform is far closer to the Objectivist outlook than say; a random group of European libertarians where the philosophical divides are quite diverse.[3]
For examples; among both Objectivists' and Libertarians' highest values are property rights, laissez faire Capitalism, the virtues of selfishness, taxation-is-theft, and anti-socialism. Americans are often surprised to learn that that there are other major flavors of libertarianism than Libertarianism. The libertarian Cato Institute's John Allison wrote, "I believe...that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists."[4] Other nations also have non-generic Libertarian political parties, such as the Libertarian Party (UK) and the Libertarians (Brazil).

Descriptive names of organizations and nations should never be assumed to be approximately accurate. Unlike the mythical "generic libertarian," the beliefs and values of informed political Libertarians can often be pinned down by examining that party's platform which is typically only a few pages long.

Have fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.82.20 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Objectivism and libertarianism. There seems to be a rough consensus that swapping the words and lowercasing libertarianism gives better precedence to the Objectivism concept, as well as satisfying MOS:CAPS concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism and Objectivism → Libertarianism and objectivism – per MOSCAPS – Primergrey (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primergrey, Jujutsuan, and FreeKnowledgeCreator: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So would anyone be happy with Objectivism and libertarianism? I know that there are plenty of libertarians who want to make sure they are considered "small-l libertarians".  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YES This is actually much better. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is O/objectivism, so putting it in front solves both the capitalization issue and improves accessibility (people will generally type searches as "<primary> and/in <broad scope>"). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least Objectivism and libertarianism. The latter is definitely a common noun, and it should not be capitalized except as a shorthand for "the platform of the Libertarian Party specifically", which is rarely the intended meaning. I would have to dig around more on [o|O]bjectivism. Followers of it usually capitalize it, but that's just the specialized-style fallacy. We'd need to review of what WP:INDY sources do with this term, excluding [O|o]bectivists' own publications. Good sources for this would be overviews of philosophy that do not not generally capitalize -isms; are they making a special exception for this one? If they're not doing this uniformly, follow MOS:IMSMCAPS and use lowercase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the capitalization with the current word order. The term is frequently capitalized in "non-believer" sources, and it refers to a very particular ideology, not philosophical "objectivism" in a general sense (which would be this or this). I'll also note that to the extent that this part of MOS relates to the names of schools of philosophy (as opposed to positions on particular topics, such as atheism or idealism), it is out of step with actual practice in articles, as seen in other examples such as Cynicism (philosophy), Legalism (Chinese philosophy), and Stoicism. That said, I'm happy to support switching the order to Objectivism and libertarianism to resolve conflict over the article name. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Objectivism and libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in Rand's view of libertarians section source number 16 is wrong

in Rand's view of libertarians section source, number 16 is wrong and it should be changed to "https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/The-Age-of-Mediocrity". 5.29.32.156 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism_and_libertarianism&oldid=1207575275"