Objectivism VS Libertarianism or Objectivism & Libertarianism?

There has long been a turf war on The Right between the right-libertarians and Objectivism. When I state the term The Right I mean those views whom support government limited to the protection of an individuals human rights. Those whom want a moral and practical government that sticks to the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is going to be some that will disagree with this definition and say neither Objectivism nor libertarians are on the Right. For those that prefer using a Nolan Chart both views would be North Wing.

The intellectual turf war was long in the making beginning when Ayn Rand herself trashed The Libertarian Party in the US and the broader movement based on said party embracing Anarcho-Capitalism. Ayn Rand felt that libertarians stole her non-initiation of coercion principle, robbed it of its foundations leaving it a floating abstraction without reason for existing and then called it their own "axiom." For those unaware an axiom is something that is self-evident and does not require an underlying reasoning behind it. However, the non-initiation of coercion or force requires legs to stand it is an end and not a beginning.

This floating way of using NAP is what makes Libertarians embrace anarcho-capitalism which is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is the social system in which initiation of coercion/force/harm to others and their property is barred via an Objectively defined rule of law. It is a world in which force is limited under Objectively defined hands to being used only in retaliation. It is a world that cannot coexist with a market bases for laws and force. As a proper and free market cannot exist if there is no stability of rules and no monopoly on force in objective and reasonable hands. You cannot trade without a rule of law and Objectively defined rules against harming others and their property.

There can be no Capitalism with anarchism as well due to human nature. Human nature is very hierarchical and anarchism makes the assumption that freed of a State humans would not naturally find the equivalent within a state of nature. Humans will always naturally produce a form of government over time and it is inevitable due to evolutionary-psychology being highly tribal. This government will then need to be fought to be limited and ones tribal side will need to be counterbalanced by a thoroughgoing use of reason and embracing of individualism or else it leads to collectivism.

Libertarians often have a view that ex-nihlo NAP comes out of nothing and that it is all that is required for a political view to exist. This is where Objectivism and Libertarianism diverge strongly and the infighting on the "freedom" Right or North Wing begin. In order to get to non-initiation of coercion of force to exist it must come out of broader philosophy to make any sense. You need an epistemological and metaphysical reason why force or coercion is evil is wrong and should not be done. Without a broader framework which includes a reality based moral code there is no reason to be in favor of NIFP, NAP, or ZAP. Why should the State not initiate force? You need to say why and it needs to be based in reality. Thus the important of starting at epistemology and metaphysics the two bases of our knowledge of existence and nature itself.

By leaving this part out the broader libertarian movement opens itself up to contradictions that can be used to claim next to anything is libertarian. Not only anarcho-capitalism, but, even so-called left-libertarians and so-called voluntary socialists or mutualists. There is no concrete libertarian from non-libertarian and the movement has been unfortunately infested with people claiming to support things such as anti-capitalism free (d) markets. Which is a contradiction in terms and when questioned they tend to be against the very foundations of private property the free market requires to exist. These folks are essentially the heirs of Benjamin Tucker classic Socialism and have no place in any movement that is supposed to be for defending the social system of Free Market Capitalism.

However, due to libertarianisms incoherence these people go uncalled out within even the Libertarian Parties themselves. Yet, there are those that are both Libertarians in the Capital L sense and also Objectivists. Is this a contradiction in terms? Is this people getting in with the wrong crowd? I do not think so because what I think will revive the proper foundations for a Libertarian Party will be more Objectivism-friendly Libertarians. Also, Objectivism does not own the primacy of existence and the need for a broader philosophy for liberty. It is simply (in my opinion and I admit my bias here) the most coherent way of integrating the desperate philosophical frameworks into a proper concrete form of moral philosophy for liberty.

However, you can have an integrated framework that is not Objectivist, but, still is based on reality being primary and the various virtues found in Objectivism as well. For example; one could base everything on reality, use reason as a means of acquiring knowledge and end up rejecting the virtue of selfishness due to thinking it means rejecting empathy and benevolence towards others. Of course, this would be incorrect and assuming an untruthful packaged deal. However, as long as they are not saying to sacrifice others pursuit of their happiness for the sake of the collective it is still not an immoral framework to live by. It simply misunderstands the nature of enlightened and rational egoism.

If this is what a particular Libertarian calls for at a broader philosophical level there is no contradiction in the terms. One could be both a Libertarian and be an ally of the fundamentals espoused by Objectivism. Going even further if one is an Objectivist and in the Libertarian Party to enact politically the political/economical framework of Objectivism there is no contradiction at all. In this case one would be essentially an Objectivist-Libertarian and be both politically Libertarian and Objectivist due to party affiliation. Further more Objectivism is not the whole of philosophy moral or otherwise. It is part of all great and true philosophy which includes much outside of Objectivism as well as within.

Objectivism does not hold a monopoly on good ideas nor does it have a monopoly on the virtues within itself. There are other philosophies which do hold to the primacy of reality, reason and proper self-esteem. Objectivism is not a religion or an insular dogma that Objectivists must evangelize all of the World into accepting or else the world is doomed to hell. Objectivism is not a cult which requires that the world become converted to its worldview and rejects all those whom are not within its boundaries of thought. Even if some prominent Objectivists have acted like it is at times and became the very dogmatic, religious minded and insular cultist individuals they rail against. Objectivism is not the problem certain Objectivists and their misunderstandings of the philosophy is the problem.

When you meet a Libertarian ask them why they support Libertarian Parties and what their principles are. Why they have those principles and get down to the legs that stand up the need for barring coercion/harm of others and their property/initiation of force/fraud. If they are basing it on reason, the facts of reality, basing it on requirements for living on Earth applaud them and they should get your support. Even if they come to some different conclusions from Objectivism they are living in reality and using reason as their guide. They are living in the primacy of existence they are living the virtues without the label even if they do not accept Objectivism as such. The most important thing of all before Objectivism even comes into play is living in reality and being guided by the facts.

This means when you meet a Libertarian living in reality, guided by the facts and with a properly functioning secular-humanist moral code these people are your allies even if they vehemently disregard Objectivism. People whom are Objectivists need to realize there is more philosophy out their than just Rand's and even if she is right does not mean other philosophies are evil or your enemy. I agree that Objectivism does match the facts of reality and that is why I am still one. However, again it is only one part of a greater whole which is all good and true philosophy out there based on reason and truth being the guide. You cannot tell if someone will be a good person or vile based only on being an Objectivist or not.

In the same vein you cannot tell if a Libertarian will be a nihilistic anarchist or a reason based limited government advocate based on the label alone. You cannot tell if they will understand existence exists and reality is based on reason or if they will be a subjectivist simply based on their party affiliation or label alone. Anymore than you can tell if someone will have accepted the reality of evolutionary-psychology or not just because they are an Objectivist. Or if they have Rand's view of homosexual activity as being disgusting or not based on being an Objectivist. One needs to know the individual Libertarian or Objectivist to know if they are in fact living in reality and not rationalizing their "beliefs" using the lenses of either viewpoint. Individualism is the answer to all this infighting.

First and foremost the "freedom" Right or the North Wing needs to remember they are methodological individualists and to not collectivize "Objectivists" nor "Libertarians." There are disgusting, vile horrible human beings that are both of these things and also neither of these things.
I would argue that Objectivists that are rightfully worried about the state of libertarianism need to infuse libertarianism with reality being real, with reason as a guide to life and defense of Capitalism "Only Capitalism," with all its features that leftie libertarians do not like. Objectivists should defend a Rightest-Libertarianism based on Classical Liberal limited government lassiez-faire Capitalist principles. It should point out the contradictions in any leftist supporting or sympathizing libertarianism.

The Objectivist whom is a Libertarian needs to make sure that Capitalism and Limited Government are the bulwarks of the broader libertarian movement. One needs to make sure one does not mistake the Right-Libertarian Limited Government pro-Capitalist stance for an anarchist chaos of no rules and of stateless markets of law. In other words it is the prevalence of anarchists in the Libertarian Parties that Objectivists and non-Objecitivsts or even anti-Objectivists alike need to ally together to keep to the sidelines of the movement. One should be as fervent in denouncing anarchist libertarians  as denouncing the dogmatic type of Objectivist whom would never work with a Non-Objectivist on anything in this world.

In conclusion far from distancing ones self from Libertarianism an Objectivist should be making sure the movement and parties stick to proper philosophy and principles. Objectivism and other reality, reason and fact based philosophies need to be shown as being the foundations for the parties and broader movement. We need to get rid of the anarchists that will bring stateless chaos and instead ground Libertarianism itself in a love for reality, truth and the virtue of pursuing ones own rational happiness. Whether Libertarians ever embrace the term selfishness or even come to this same conclusion is in the long run irrelevant. What is relevant is that The Right and The North (depending on your political landscape) become interchanged for meaning reason guided limited government advocates based in the facts of reality and the free market. The principles matter above all else.