Political Crossfire Forums

[brian_in_idaho]

I have spent considerable time over on Wikipedia studying the topics of Objectivism, Anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarianism, and it appears that there is a great deal of commonality. I believe all promote minimal governmental control in society, accept capitalism as the proper means of consensual trade between individuals and a strong respect for property rights-if I am wrong please correct me.

My question for you in this thread is, what are the fundamental differences between the 3...I'm going to say philosophies, perhaps they are more appropriately defined as something else.

I strongly believe the government is involved in far more things than are constitutionally justified, I have questions concerning items that perhaps are legitimate for governments to own. My question is how do you address issues such as road ownership/construction and maintenance in any of the above systems? And how do you address eminant domain? In an ideal system, the government should be able to purchase property for these purposes with the consent of the owner...how do you address a property owner that will not sell? (again, assuming this is for specific public use, not a land grab for private development).

Thanks, thoughts are appreciated.
Bri

[jawsome]

Here's my brief response that I think gives at least a basic differentiation:

Objectivism is more than a political philosophy: most of its believers feel that there is an objective reality that will leads to answers in all fields of human endeavor or experience.

Anarcho-Capitalism: The state should not interfere whatsoever in the economy; most anarcho-capitalists believe this pertains to patents, intellectual rights, etc. Libertarians, however, for the most part believe that the government must uphold property rights and such.

Of course, it's most complicated than that but I feel like those are the basics. Expect Nathyn to write you a great dissertation on the subject. :lol:

[brian_in_idaho]

jawsome, thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree that objectivism accepts the existence of an objective reality. To paraphrase this, objects exist and are what they are, regardless of our understanding of the "details" of what they are. For example, you and I both look at an object, I identify it as a rock...you identify it as a piece of granite, composed of atoms and molecules, formed by...etc(I am not a geologist :) ). Objectivism holds that this object is the same, regardless of our level of knowledge, and that the process of learning and integrating knowledge improves our level of understanding of reality, but does not change it. In short, wishing doesn't make it so, or if you prefer a different approach, an objectivist would answer the old question "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound", with, of course, the perception of an individual doesn't change the reality of the situation. I think an objectivist would say that recognizing the existence of an objective reality is the first step in a rational thought process, but in itself will not provide the answers of all fields of endeavor or experience...it's only the first step.

As you said, objectivism is perhaps a philosophy that recognizes a political system appropriate for the survival of a rational being, recognizing consensual trade, property rights and minimal governmental force and coercion as part of this. It is, as you said, more than this though, in that it attempts to how we reason, integrate observation and experience into knowledge. OK, I'm fuzzy on the exact definition of epistemology (as well as it's spelling), perhaps that is what I am trying to say.

I am inferring from both what you have said, and my own limited understanding, is that anarcho-capitalism is more of a political system, than a philosophy, in that it proposes "what to do" without defining a philosophical base. I am probably wrong on this, I don't pretend to understand or have studied more than the very basics of the term.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Bri