It should come as no surprise based on my previous writings, explicit admissions, and the title of this site that I am not just politically libertarian, but philosophically objectivist.  It’s a philosophical position that repels some because it is misunderstood, and repels others because it is understood.  I’m not going to discuss the abstract beliefs of objectivism in this post, but I wanted to reflect on a common personality characteristic of objectivists in general: a combative, adversarial communication style with philosophical opponents.

For many objectivists, battling other viewpoints is seen as a matter of simple justice.  The thinking goes that error should not be tolerated, but should be exposed and energetically opposed wherever it is found, in much the way that a garden should be aggressively patrolled for evidence of weeds.  But what are the weeds in this metaphor, the errant ideas, or the holders of those ideas?

To simplify, and hopefully not oversimplify: What we may call the objectivist orthodoxy has long held that there are very few innocent mistakes; that most errors come from a willful refusal to consider the ramifications of one’s desires.  As such, a person in error is not to be trusted, nor given the respect of acting in good faith.

An alternate strain of objectivist thought posits, and I believe correctly, that the scope of honest error is actually quite large, and at any rate, the mere fact of error is not enough to conclude bad faith on the part of the person in error.  Thinking is hard work, and there are many ways in which a conscientious thinker might veer off course for a time.

These differing interpretations on the nature of error result in differing default standpoints regarding how an objectivist should treat someone holding a mistaken position.  The former might say “They should know better.  They’re a scoundrel.”.  The latter might say “They don’t know any better.  They’re misguided.”.  However, both would join in condemning one who has actually demonstrated their knowledge of the truth, and has yet chosen to advocate error instead.

So how does this pertain to my current advocacy of libertarian political policy (which I take to be the correct and proper policy for the country and humanity, not just my preference) and my attitude toward those who advocate political forms characterized by state control of personal or consensual behavior?  For starters, while I give not one inch in my actual convictions, I give immense latitude to those who cannot imagine liberty “working” — it is an extremely foreign concept, utterly at odds with not only what they’ve been taught, but also how they’ve been taught.  What is school if not the top-down dissemination of truth from establishment to the passive masses?  Most people barely trust themselves to form a correct opinion without reference to recognized authority, so it’s little wonder that they do not trust their peers to do so.

But they can form correct opinions.  They need living proof of another way of regarding the individual’s relation to society, a way I do my best to model.  What they do not need is condescension: I’ve learned that they are likely to be as smart as my ideological fellow travellers, and that my fellows’ awareness of certain truths is unlikely to stem primarily from their unique gifts, but rather largely from fortunate exposure to the right ideas at the right time.  For the most part, the opponents of freedom are still people who desperately want to do right, who are motivated by a sense of morality and fairness, even if their position on what constitutes morality and fairness differs from mine.

Humiliation and frothing rage are never appropriate (unless we’re talking about totalitarian dictators, torturers, etc.).  Not even in response to the same.  Some people have some odd notions as to what constitutes the proper form of intellectual advocacy and debate, and it leads them to say some pretty wild things.  It’s fair to insist on a certain level of civility in discussion, but it doesn’t make sense to actually get angry with strangers.  Because I believe in my ideas, it’s to my advantage to keep the discussion about the ideas, not about my feelings or my motives.

I haven’t always lived up to my own ideals.  There’s a too natural tendency to personalize ideological disputes, to make these arguments of ideas and ideals contests of personality.  But I try to keep my cool.  In the end, it’s not personal.

Since beginning this blog, my thoughts on this subject have continued to evolve.  I believe I’ve been learning something new and important, even if not necessarily all that original.  Most importantly, as a form of direct advocacy, it’s been working.