For Objectivists, “value” has a particular meaning within a particular philosophy, an objective philosophy which includes life as a standard of value, a philosophy which sets the context for everything thought and said. That meaning of value is indeed specific to Objectivism. Outside that context there can be many types of values because there can be many types of standards. False (nonobjective) alternatives outnumber uniquely objective solutions.

So, yes, value for heroin users is more general, and value for Objectivists is more specific, but the generality and specificity are nonessentials not essentials. That is, generality and specificity are consequences not causes.

I would suggest the essential issue is objective vs. non-objective. “Libertarianism” as I usually hear it used is not objective; its adherents boastfully disconnect it from a philosophical base. Libertarians are not Objectivists. Objectivists are not libertarians.

Of course, in any conversation, one needs to find out exactly what other speakers mean by the terms/ideas they use. Surprises usually follow.

Burgess Laughlin
http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com

You’ve explained well how “value” can have both a generic and specific definition. Something can be a “value” in the generic sense of simply being an object of pursuit, or in the specific sense of being an object of pursuit that actually furthers your life.

We use the generic sense to designate facts about other people (and their philosophies). Important things follow from the fact that people have objects of pursuit. If we identify their values, we can predict, within a certain range, their thoughts and action. So it is cognitively useful to form a generic concept of “value.”

Does the same apply to “liberty”? Well there’s an important difference between “value” and “liberty.” The first describes dispositional/relational states of other people wihch are useful for predicting their behavior. But the second is a concept that primarily describes a feature of political systems, not someone’s beliefs about political systems.

Now “libertarian” is a little different, still. It putatively refers to “anyone who advocates liberty.” That’s more like “value.” But it’s parasitical upon an understanding of “liberty.” I think we can talk about a generic concept of “libertarian” only if there is an equally generic concept of “liberty.” I’m not sure that there is one in the relevant sense.

If there a generic concept of “liberty,” it’s extremely generic and of no relevance to politics. I’m talking about the sense in which “liberty” refers to the absence of any factor of interest. Actually “freedom” is the better term here. We can say that some food is “free” of preservatives, or that a building is “free” of termites, or that a political system is “free” of coercion. “Liberty” doesn’t work quite the same way, it means specifically a kind of political freedom.

So then the question is, does the political specificty of “liberty” allow any degrees of generality? Can we say that Marxists believe in liberty in one sense, liberty of the proletariat from the capitalists, whereas Lockeans believe in liberty in another sense, liberty of the capitalists from the Marxists? Perhaps we can say that, but then that generic sense of “liberty” does not map onto a generic sense of “libertarian,” because everybody would a libertarian in that sense and the term wouldn’t pick out anything interesting.

That leaves the question, is “libertarian” perhaps a legitimate concept when taken only in the specific sense? In other words, could we say that only Objectivists are the real libertarians, because they advocate the full philosophic system that is necessary for defending real liberty? That would at least be a more meaningful use of “libertarian” in that it would actually contrast one political position from another.

But I don’t think that even that is justifiable, for several reasons. First of all, it’s an overly negative way to classify a political theory. It says that a political theory does not believe in coercion. OK, but what does it believe in? Objectivism doesn’t just reject coercion, it also upholds government and its protection of rights, and all of the systems of laws that are required for this purpose. “Capitalism” is a better concept here, because it denotes more of these positives.

Second of all, and most importantly, even if it were acceptable to designate a political philosophy by a negative concept like “liberty,” “libertarian” would be the wrong word for this concept. It’s wrong because a) it’s less elegant than “liberal” and b) it’s already been coopted by a philosophy that doesn’t believe in liberty, and we don’t want to associate ourselves with it.

So I don’t think there’s any sense in which we should say Objectivism is libertarian.