RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, and ARI

Friday
April 6, 2007

Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, and ARI by Tibor R. Machan

In a recent letter to the editor to The Los Angeles Times, Jeff Britting of the Ayn Rand Institute writes as follows:
"Ayn Rand did not write novels of "uncompromising libertarianism." In her view, libertarianism has no philosophy to uphold uncompromisingly.
Libertarianism rejects the need for a consistent, objective, philosophic defense of liberty and regards politics as primary. Rand was a defender of reason and recognized that political freedom requires a philosophy of reason and egoism. That is why Rand repeatedly condemned the libertarian movement, regarding herself, instead, as a "radical for capitalism." For further explanation, see Rand's novel of uncompromising objectivist, not libertarian, ideas — "Atlas Shrugged" — celebrating its 50th anniversary this year." (Letters, March 30, 2007) (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (84 messages)

Post 0

Friday, April 6, 2007 - 11:22am

Link

Edit

For those that are interested, the letter was in response to an editorial in the L. A. Times entitled Libertarians' silver lining, written by Brian Doherty, Senior Editor of Reason Magazine. The editorial gave an overview of the Libertarian movement, its high points and contributions over the years and the value it has to offer in today's context. Here is the ending:

... libertarians can take heart in Americans' growing dissatisfaction with military intervention overseas, with the prospect of an entitlement state in which recipients far outnumber taxpayers and with government manipulations and intrusions in education, immigration, abortion and stem cell research. In such a political context, libertarian wisdom about keeping government out of our lives as much as possible looks more and more promising.

There were only a few sentences that referred to Rand (and no mention of Objectivism):

Rand became a campus favorite, selling novels of uncompromising libertarianism to tens of millions. In the immediate aftermath of the New Deal, the modern American libertarian movement first began to coalesce in the works of such feisty American female novelists and philosophers as Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, and in the insights of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

Then a few paragraphs later.

Rand became a campus favorite, selling novels of uncompromising libertarianism to tens of millions.

I enjoyed the editorial and reading it gave me a helpful context for Tibor's response to that letter. In that context, Jeff Britting's letter missed an opportunity to join in all of the positive elements of that editorial and to explain the key role Objectivism and Rand played. And this opportunity was lost because of his focus on differences between Rand and Libertarianism.

Post 1

Friday, April 6, 2007 - 11:38am

Link

Edit

Tibor,

You mention that “a political stance cannot do any rejecting.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but it seems like a valid formulation. Wouldn’t it be valid to say, “Socialism rejects private property”? Granted that once you make that kind of statement, you are obligated to demonstrate that it is true.

But, this is just a quibble on my part because I agree with your point about the letter not naming the libertarian(s) in question. And I would also think the letter would need to provide an example of “politics as primary.”

The only focus of the letter was to separate Ayn Rand from an article that described an honorable struggle for freedom by Libertarians. The article would have left the average reader with a favorable impression of Libertarianism. It would have made much more sense to claim credit on behalf of Ayn Rand for the spread of ideas about Capitalism than to separate her from the article.

Post 2

Friday, April 6, 2007 - 12:19pm

Link

Edit

Doesn’t it make sense for moderate Muslims to recognize their need to “excommunicate” the terrorists and any supporter of jihad? And isn’t it their responsibility to reform their religion, as needed, to live peacefully in a world with other beliefs? It is certainly in their long-term interest to do so. How likely is it that they will ever listen to us when we are so angry at them? And how could we not be angry at them when they harbor and even sanction such hateful beliefs and evil people?

I mention that because, although much less extreme - there is a parallel for Libertarians. Don’t we have a few “nut-cases” running around calling themselves “Libertarians” and getting away with it? There are some Libertarians whose beliefs may be rational but who take an attitude that is akin to mooning all of society. What how effective is a rational argument when what the public is seeing someone exposing their hairy ass?

Sometimes the intellectual messes I see leave me swamped with disgust or sadness. I see absurd positions defended with rabid, dog-in-the-manger attitudes and I wonder how the movement's success could ever be possible.

Look at the different kinds of “Libertarianism” that exist: Agorism, Anarcho-capitalism, Geolibertarianism, Green libertarianism, Left-libertarianism, Minarchism, Neolibertarianism, Paleolibertarianism.

Are there no guideposts as to what “Libertarian” means? Certainly principles on the political use of force should be a key to what a political movement is about – not with libertarianism – it houses everyone from the pacifist to the crusading liberator. Then given the essential nature of property rights to Capitalism that should be a common tenet, right? Wrong, there are libertarian socialists and Geolibertarians and others that crusade to eliminate this or that property right. Well, then the kind of government – is that defining? No, because there are not just anarchists, but a variety of kinds of anarchists as well as those who have different forms of minarchist positions and even those that want a government sizeable enough to wage multiple, simultaneous large-scale wars.

I’m very torn in this business of finding a way to a more unified position - a tighter definition and less tolerance for those who are willing to toss out any principle but then still claim to have standing with the rest of us - and what Tibor so rightly advocates when he asks,

Would it not be swell if all these silly quarrels could be set aside and all those who are convinced of the value of the free society for human community life could focus on productive endeavors instead?

Post 3

Friday, April 6, 2007 - 3:21pm

Link

Edit

From Tibor's essay:

I n fact, a great many libertarians have reached their libertarian political conclusions based on their view that Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy gave this position solid support. Libertarianism is a political stance, not a full blown philosophy; this, by the way, is the case with many other political positions, including those of Republicans, Democrats, monarchists, or theocrats, all of which have been defended from a variety of philosophical viewpoints not every one of which is successful in giving them adequate support.

Rand, by the way, also called herself a "radical capitalist"

That Libertarians excuse their politcal party lacking a "full blown philosophy" based on the actions of other morally corupt politcal parties is not very comforting. And it is most troubling that they would take Rand's self label of "radical capitalist" and not actually bother to understand the full philosophical meaning of the term. To the laymen, radical captialist can sound like Anarcho-Capitalist. I don't know the percentage of Libertarians that are self-avowed anarchists but I recall seeing a statistic of 25%. Not terribly surprising that so many are members of the Libertarian party when a full blown philosophical basis for the party has not been established.

From Alex Peak, the Liberterian representative of Baltimore:

Not everything has to come down to whether or not we have anarchists in our party. There's plenty of room for anarchists and minarchists alike

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000589.shtml

The fact that Libertarians lack a philosophical basis leads to the pragmatic idea amongst libertarians that libertarianism is only good for people who happen to choose it, and it has no objective value beyond that. It is not surprising then that anarchy has seeped so far into the party's consciousness. If you say "anything goes for the rest of the world" you implicitly say "anything goes here" as well. Almost outright Pacifism, Anti-Americanism, and Anarchism, are the symptoms of a morally corrupt and depraved party.

At least Democrats, Repubicans, monarchists, theocrats, as morally corrupt as they are, maybe are better than Libertarians, at least they believe in an objective code of laws to be applied by a government with a monopoly on the use of force.

Post 4

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 6:54am

Link

Edit

"L'État, c'est moi." -- Louis XIV.

At least Democrats, Repubicans, monarchists, theocrats, as morally corrupt as they are, maybe are better than Libertarians, at least they believe in an objective code of laws to be applied by a government with a monopoly on the use of force.

Tell us, jeffe, what is an "objective code of laws"? I would hate to think that you would use a sophisticated concept like "objective code of laws" without being able to define what such a thing is.

Post 5

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 10:31am

Link

Edit

I would hate to think that you would use a sophisticated concept like "objective code of laws" without being able to define what such a thing is.

Marotta, do you intentionally try to misconstrue everthing posted?

"objective" - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

"code of laws" is pretty self explanatory, so an "objective code of laws" is a code of laws not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE RULE OF LAW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Of course, as an Anarchist, you wouldnt be familiar with the concept of "rule of law"

Post 6

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 12:13pm

Link

Edit

Tibor Machan: "Rand, by the way, also called herself a "radical capitalist" and it is clear that capitalism is also defended from a variety of philosophical and religious standpoints."

Really? "Clear" to whom? I'm seriously stunned that an academic philosopher who's familiar with Objectivism would write that statement on an Objectivist Internet board as though it's an uncontroversial fact.

Here's the reality: Some philosophies or religions may seem, superficially, to be compatible with free-market capitalism. However, all of those other systems espouse more fundamental theories about reality, knowledge, and goodness that can be proven to *undermine* free-market capitalism, making it impossible to achieve or sustain in practice. THIS was the position of Ayn Rand--and the reason why she bothered to spend so much time and effort developing a revolutionary new philosophical system.

Of course, some so-called Objectivists continue to think a political system, rather than being the mere *effect* of a culture's dominant philosophical viewpoint, is something that may be changed without changing the *cause*. To such misguided people, the position I stated above is just a "silly quarrel" that should be "set aside" in order to "focus on productive endeavors."

Post 7

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 1:01pm

Link

Edit

     As I've argued elsewhere, O'ism (because of Rand's 'radicalness for Capitalism') is 'libertarian' in that it is merely (as implied by Tibor) a single tenet in Politics: freedom/liberty-for-individuals from (an overbearing?) state control. As an adjective, it does distinguish it's orientation from most political systems historically (anti-dictator/functional-monarchy/oligarchies, etc.)
    However, it is not a type of 'libertarianism' since such, as a 'movement' or political party, includes too many disparate groups who can't even agree with each other on just what 'individual liberty' really implies.
    The adjective fits; the noun doesn't.

LLAP
J:D

Post 8

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 1:54pm

Link

Edit

Jon,

You are reading too much into the word "defended." If a group of people at a political rally stand up and cheer in "defense" of a point a speaker has made, does that mean that they fully understand the position? Does that mean they understand all of it's philosophical implications? Does that mean they are in complete logical agreement? Does that mean that they provided a rational defense? No in every case. It just means they "defended" that position.

Tibor said NOTHING about the variety of philosophical and religious standpoints being "compatible" at more fundamental levels. Nor did he disagree with the point you made. His point is that those who agree on freedom should focus more on fighting for freedom and less on fighting each other. That does not contain any call for a compromise on any principle.

Post 9

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 2:24pm

Link

Edit

Steve:

    True, and agreed. I was not arguing that Tibor was arguing such (at least I didn't intend to imply such.)

    Merely pointing out a disinction re O'ism being (or rather, 'not') a 'type' of 'libertarinism.'

    Tibor is absolutely correct in castigating all who dwell on this (like me? Well, he brought the subject up!); my point is, as Chris Sciabarra pointed out in his TRR that ntl, O'ism is in the politial strain of being a 'libertarian' politics. That's all.

LLAP
J:D

Post 10

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 2:27pm

Link

Edit

Steve: You [Jon] are reading too much into the word "defended."

No, Steve, I'm not.

And of what value is "agreeing on freedom" with people whose basic theoretical viewpoints make the practical achievement/sustenance of freedom impossible?

Maybe that has some value in the Platonic sense, but it has no value in the Objectivist one.

Again, free-market capitalism is merely a political *result* (just like romanticism is an artistic one). It's nothing more than the expression of a certain dominant philosophy (i.e., metaphysical/epistemic/ethical viewpoint).

For a crystal clear proof, read The Ominous Parallels by Peikoff, which Rand helped develop and effusively endorsed.

Post 11

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 3:14pm

Link

Edit

Objectivism is not "Libertarian", neither as adjective, nor noun.

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, an integrated system for viewing and relating to the world - no more, and no less. At best, a political party can claim that the ideas they espouse are an extension of, or related to, a philosophy that they credit as the inspiration for aspects of their particular platform. In the case of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, other than superficially, any such a claim by libertarians would be extremely hard to support.

As for the libertarian “movement/party”, unfortunately its lack of a cohesive foundation has made it a magnet for single issue nutters and a large number of anti-American and anti-Semitic fanatics. Of course there are a good number of intelligent and decent people that work and advocate for libertarian organizations; however, I am of the opinion that both the term "libertarian", and the organizations associated with it, are unsalvageable.

George

Post 12

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 3:27pm

Link

Edit

John Dailey,

I agree with you completely. We cross-posted and it looks like you might have responded to my reply to "Jon" not "John."

My disagreement was only with Jon Trager.

Jon,

I don't entirely disagree with you. It would be a mistake to ever compromise our principles and get into bed with, say, Republican conservatives in hopes of furthering freedom.

But note that Tibor's article is about the amount of squabbling between factions who are not disimilar at the metaphysical or empistemological base. For example, would you advocate expending energy and time fighting back and forth between the open versus closed systems of Objectivism to the exclusion of attempting to work together to bring about increased freedom?

Post 13

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 3:30pm

Link

Edit

MFD, you never answered the question. Please spare us the cut-and-paste definitions and enlighten us on the one true objective code of laws. You might start here...

Post 14

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 6:11pm

Link

Edit

Turns out Objectivism has a contextualist view of definitions--so it can have elements that aren't the whole thing. It also has a capitalist political economy; it has several distinctive facets in its psychology, aesthetics and so forth. And in politics, it is libertarian. Not so difficult to see the point, I'd say.

Post 15

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 7:02pm

Link

Edit

MFD, you never answered the question. Please spare us the cut-and-paste definitions and enlighten us on the one true objective code of laws.

John was clearly not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of laws, but merely a code of laws that are objective (formal and equally applicable) It was clear to any rational reader he was not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of morality (and laws) because he said 'at least the democrats and republicans have an 'objective code of laws' (that is laws that are written and applied without bias) Anarchists can make no such claim since they have NO LAWS, let alone laws that strive to be equally applied.

Post 16

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 7:09pm

Link

Edit

Jonathan wrote:

MFD, you never answered the question. Please spare us the cut-and-paste definitions and enlighten us on the one true objective code of laws.

No one said there is one true objective code of laws. There are multiple jurisdictions on this planet so they all don't follow the same code of laws. Within each jurisdiction there ought to be one set of laws that are objectively applied by one government, which would require that government have the monopoly on the use of force. Hence they each have an objective code of law, i.e. not multiple conflicting sets of laws within one jurisdiction. Is that so bizarre a concept or are you purposely trying to be obtuse? We don't for example follow common law and Sharia law in the United States. But anarchists would be content with allowing such a conflict. So he did answer the question but you changed the question and are now purposely evading the answer.

So if you're still not sure what an objective code of laws look like, go to your library, ask the librarian to show you where you can find the "United States Federal Statutes".

Post 17

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 9:18pm

Link

Edit

MFD: John was clearly not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of laws, but merely a code of laws that are objective (formal and equally applicable) It was clear to any rational reader he was not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of morality (and laws) because he said 'at least the democrats and republicans have an 'objective code of laws' (that is laws that are written and applied without bias) Anarchists can make no such claim since they have NO LAWS, let alone laws that strive to be equally applied.

John A: No one said there is one true objective code of laws. There are multiple jurisdictions on this planet so they all don't follow the same code of laws. Within each jurisdiction there ought to be one set of laws that are objectively applied by one government, which would require that government have the monopoly on the use of force. Hence they each have an objective code of law, i.e. not multiple conflicting sets of laws within one jurisdiction. Is that so bizarre a concept or are you purposely trying to be obtuse? We don't for example follow common law and Sharia law in the United States. But anarchists would be content with allowing such a conflict. So he did answer the question but you changed the question and are now purposely evading the answer.

So if you're still not sure what an objective code of laws look like, go to your library, ask the librarian to show you where you can find the "United States Federal Statutes".

Are you guys joined at the hip?!?!? ;-)!!

Michael, I don't recall addressing anything John said, so I don't know why you're rushing to defend him. I'll concede the point about an objective code of laws vs. the objective code of laws (although that raises some other questions). You are wrong when you say that anarchists [would] have NO LAWS. I am not here to defend anarchism, but you are knocking down a strawman by equating anarchism with lawlessness.

John, how can there not be one true objective set of laws? If the law truly is objective, then how can different jurisdictions have different laws? Does reality change from one area to the next? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Post 18

Saturday, April 7, 2007 - 10:16pm

Link

Edit

You are wrong when you say that anarchists [would] have NO LAWS.

Come again?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

1. a state of society without government or law.

John, how can there not be one true objective set of laws? If the law truly is objective, then how can different jurisdictions have different laws? Does reality change from one area to the next? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Why would you think different jurisdictions with different sets of laws means reality changes from one area to the next? Does reality change from Oklahoma to Kansas? But *gasp* they have different state laws! Oh my god the universe will now implode from this paradox!! Are you honestly not understanding this or being facetious?

Do you think Great Britain and the United States have the same set of laws? No, they contradict each other in some instances but that doesn't matter so much as they are applied uniformly to the jurisdiction they apply to. People can agree on man's rights but disagree on how to go about protecting them. United States may deem 1000 dollars of theft warrant 2 years in jail, in Great Britain the punishment could be 4 years in jail. Point being a jurisdiction must not have conflicting or contradicting laws. A jurisdiction must decide on one set of laws to be applied to it.

Post 19

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 7:31am

Link

Edit

Michael F. Dickey wrote:
"objective" - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
"code of laws" is pretty self explanatory, so an "objective code of laws" is a code of laws not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE RULE OF LAW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

You cannot do all of your homework from the Wikipedia. It is just a place to establish basic facts, such as what day of the week Columbus made landfall in the New World. Most Wikipedia articles cite sources, and the good ones certainly do. Consider the source; check the premises.

John Armaos wrote:
No one said there is one true objective code of laws. There are multiple jurisdictions on this planet so they all don't follow the same code of laws. Within each jurisdiction there ought to be one set of laws that are objectively applied by ...

Within the context of Objectivism as taught by Ayn Rand, that statement is nonsense. It must be a non-sequitar in any system of philosophy that recognized the correctness of Ayn Rand's essay "The Nature of Government." The statement made by Mr. Armaos could be made by a market anarchist, given that for the word "laws" one substitutes "contractual obligations." I believe that Mr. Armaos has other intentions, entirely, but only fails to achieve them.

In Post 6, Jon Trager wrote:
Some philosophies or religions may seem, superficially, to be compatible with free-market capitalism. However, all of those other systems ...

In that is an important clue. Mr. Dickey and Mr. Armaos are both wrong because they do not use the word "objective" correctly. As Jon Trager replied to Dr. Tibor Machan: "I'm seriously stunned that an academic philosopher who's familiar with Objectivism would write that statement on an Objectivist Internet board as though it's an uncontroversial fact."

I attended a "Basic Principles of Objectivism" class in 1966-1967 that was opened by Nathaniel Branden. In the Q&A someone asked if "objectivism" is the same as "realism" and "rationalism." Nathaniel Branden said (as near as I recall), that yes, as long as you use lowercase letters. He then explained some of the errors in philosophical Realism and philosophical Rationalism that were corrected in Ayn Rand's philosophical Objectivism.

Mr. Dickey and Mr. Armaos both relied on the folksy "dictionary" (wiki) meaninging of the word "objective" and that usage is a philosophical dead end in the context of Objectivism.

For a better understanding of what criteria an Objective code of laws would have to meet, see Ed Thompson's posts in the RoR Law Forum under the Topic, "What is an Objective Justice System?"

I believe that Ed is framing the inquiry correctly and that Jonathan Fauth is asking the right questions. I believe that ultimately, Ed's criteria will be shown to be consonant with "contractual justice" (law without government; "anarcho-capitalism") just as rational astronomy is not what was done by the priests of Babylon, even though they were technically correct about much. That remains for later. (Similarly, Robert Bidinotto has done a stellar job of setting down the requirements for so-called "criminal law" that must be met by an agoric justice system.)

Mr. Dickey and Mr. Armaos are certainly honest in their attempts in that they have shown themselves here to be familiar with the works of Ayn Rand and in general agreement with the broad themes, but they err from lack of experience.

For a better answer to the question of what an "objective code of laws" is, do as Ed Thompson did for a different problem: take a correct statement of fundamental truth (Jon Trager's Post 6) and substitute the relevant concept.

Some philosophies or religions may seem, superficially, to be compatible with an objectlve code of laws. However, all of those other systems espouse more fundamental theories about reality, knowledge, and goodness that can be proven to *undermine* an objective code of laws, making it impossible to achieve or sustain in practice.

Anyone who wants to pursue these ideas might find productive engagement in the RoR Law Forum's "Objective Law" Topic.