RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

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)

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 9:37am

Tibor gives us this quote of Rand from the early sixties,

The libertarians are a loose group...

That hasn't changed - They've just become looser. And now one could say the Objectivists are a loose group (we too seem to have people who differ on very basic premises).

I have long felt that we need to be able to work together better. If we could do that, I suspect we would also become at least a little less loose.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:17am

I would like to see some specifics here. Of the political philosophers I know who may be accurately called libertarian, who are these subjectivists, etc.? Eric Mack? Lester Hunt? Daniel Shapiro? Aeon Skoble? Tibor R. Machan? Jan Narveson? Randy Dipert? Who? (Not that I agree with all of these but "subjectivists" no way.) This is also somewhat akin to regarding Objectivism flawed because so many of the folks calling themselves Objectivists are insufferable boors, impolite, uptight, homophobic, racists, or whatever else.
I think Chris made the point well with "egoism." Rand is an egoist even though other egoists hold views very different from her version. Rand is also a libertarian even though other libertarians hold views very different from her version. Nor need one take Rand's outbursts, some of which are clearly based on personal animosities, quarrels, and such, very seriously. Moreover, there are many cases when someone's self-identification as a certain "ist" is widely and soundly disputed by others. So Rand didn't want to be called a libertarian but she may well not have been the best judge of who is or isn't one, not, especially, given all the heat that surrounded her discussions of this matter.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:09am

Machan: "Of the political philosophers I know who may be accurately called libertarian, who are these subjectivists, etc.? Eric Mack? Lester Hunt? Daniel Shapiro? Aeon Skoble? Tibor R. Machan? Jan Narveson? Randy Dipert? Who?"

Where did I say "libertarian philosophers"? I only know of a dozen or so libertarian philosophers. But libertarians are also economists, columnists, lawyers, historians, political scientists, and others. All of these people communicate ideas for a living. And you don't have to look hard to find those who argue for capitalism (or attempt it) from a skeptical-subjectivist viewpoint.

I could name a lot of names from organizations I used to work for in the free-market movement. But I still like a number of the people from those organizations personally, so I'm not going to start pointing fingers. Suffice it to say that if you interact with the whole staff of any large free-market organization, you're going to find that many people are hardcore skeptics or mystics.

You're also going to find plenty of people who have nothing but contempt for Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Many libertarians will grudgingly admit that Rand's fiction is the top source of converts to the free-market cause, and some will say so proudly. But I've also heard some libertarians attack Ayn Rand as viciously as refugees from Cuba attack Fidel Castro, and only after hearing her name mentioned in passing. It made me sick--especially since these people hadn't even bothered to read any of her nonfiction work, and probably never will.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/18, 8:21pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/19, 9:17am)

Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 9:09pm

Jon Trager,

"..if you interact with the whole staff of any large free-market organization, you're going to find that many people are hardcore skeptics or mystics."

"You're also going to find plenty of people who have nothing but contempt for Ayn Rand and Objectivism."

Regarding your objectivity: from the beginning of your attack on Tibor I read nothing but belligerent assertions like the above. No reasoned arguments. No discernable purpose besides attacking the "legitimacy" of libertarians and libertarian organizations. Ayn Rand was a foremost defender of individualism, regarding thinking for oneself as a primary value in a persons life. But, according to you, close is not good enough as far as understanding and adherence to the details of Ayn Rand's philosophy. And if an organization has "many people" or "plenty of people" who don't believe or kowtow to the memory of Ayn Rand then those organizations and all of the people in them can be dismissed. I also think that your assertion that non-objectivists who are supporters of capitalism and the free market actually harm capitalism is incredible and facetious.

I'm sorry, I cannot retract my assertion of my opinion of you, in the context of this thread, as "idiot" because after re-reading your remarks, alas, I still hold that opinion. Perhaps I will feel differently on a future subject.

Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:26pm

Leonard Peikoff once remarked, "There are two ways to destroy an idea: One is to attack it outright; the other is to defend it badly." This may be what Rand was concerned about in her disavowal of the libertarians. She felt it was very important to mount a sound defense of capitalism all the way down to philosophical fundamentals.

- Bill

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 5:25am

Yet if there are plenty of those around who defend a good idea properly, and their voices are heard more clearly than those of others who defend it badly, there shouldn't be much to worry about. Objectivists, less than others, can ask that everyone be forced to fall in line with a given defense. Instead, they have to keep vigilant and hope that their good defense will attract enough attention to carry the day. But in the meanwhile there is the danger of alienating all those with whom one can forge limited alliance and who may help one stay in the game in the face of the out and out threats from the tyrannically inclined. Yet, too many Objectivists fret endlessly about the precise defense to be offered up and dissing those who haven't falling in line fully--kind of like fiddling while Rome burns!

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 8:31am

Wow. Just when I think this thread is finally dead, I'm proven wrong.

Mike: "I'm sorry, I cannot retract my assertion of my opinion of you, in the context of this thread, as "idiot" because after re-reading your remarks, alas, I still hold that opinion. Perhaps I will feel differently on a future subject."

You're too funny, Mike. I said a rational person would be ashamed of such childish name-calling in this context and apologize (I know I would). If you won't, that says more about your character than it does about mine. I don't really value your opinion of me one way or the other. Just wanted to clear that up, because you seem to believe otherwise.

Also, characterizing the claims you quoted as "belligerent assertions" is absurd. Those are statements of objective fact. Have you ever worked for a free-market organization, Mike, and casually mentioned Ayn Rand or Objectivism in a conversation? I'm guessing not. If so, you'd know what I'm saying is true.

And where did I ever say that "all of the people" in libertarian organizations can be dismissed?! I specifically said I still like and respect some of those people. You seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension (eg, pointing out to me that AR didn't invent capitalism, which is a ridiculous claim I'd never make).

Mike: "I also think that your assertion that non-objectivists who are supporters of capitalism and the free market actually harm capitalism is incredible and facetious."

Do you now? Because that's exactly what Ayn Rand said/wrote on a number of occassions. For example, she said that conservatives who defend the free market on the basis of faith discredit capitalism by implying there's no rational basis for the capitalist system. She clearly did not view such people as allies.

Bill: "Leonard Peikoff once remarked, "There are two ways to destroy an idea: One is to attack it outright; the other is to defend it badly." This may be what Rand was concerned about in her disavowal of the libertarians. She felt it was very important to mount a sound defense of capitalism all the way down to philosophical fundamentals."

Good point, Bill. That's essentially what I said in my response to Mike above.

Tibor: "Yet, too many Objectivists fret endlessly about the precise defense to be offered up and dissing those who haven't falling in line fully--kind of like fiddling while Rome burns!"

I see where you're coming from, Dr. Machan--and it's flatly contradictory to what Ayn Rand believed and cautioned against. She'd be aghast at the suggestion that agreement on a consistent and rational (versus skeptical or mystical) defense of capitalism is somehow dogmatic or nitpicking. As proof, see dozens of published messages in Letters of Ayn Rand.

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 3:02pm

So the real purpose of some of these posts is to show how "I am more Randian than thou," even at the expense of grasping what I have been saying. The point is that for practical, immediate political purposes it is valuable to cooperate with those who aren't completely on the same page about how to defend a good institution, policy, law, etc. Ultimately it would be best to get everyone on the same page about every true thing. But if one had to wait until that happens, one would be defeated on innumerable fronts. My way buys some time. The other way sinks us. BTW, I have been excommunicated by leader way back in 1963, so you are very late with your banishment.

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 5:00pm

Machan: "So the real purpose of some of these posts is to show how "I am more Randian than thou," even at the expense of grasping what I have been saying."

No. It's too bad that's all you're able to see. AR had a valid reason for believing what she did. You should try to understand why she was so adamant about it sometime.

Machan: "My way buys some time. The other way sinks us."

Your way is "buying time?" Is that why the US government is getting bigger and more powerful every year, despite the efforts of dozens of pro-capitalism institutions? Come on!

No amount of proselytizing for capitalism will do any good unless it's supported primarily on moral grounds with a rational philosophical foundation. That's the bottom line.

Machan: "BTW, I have been excommunicated by leader way back in 1963, so you are very late with your banishment."

What banishment? What on earth are you talking about??

Seeing certain people yell "Randroid" on this forum where none exists is rather disconcerting. Fortunately, there are many other more reasonable people around who aren't trigger happy when it comes to that kind of thing.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/20, 5:06pm)

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 8:06pm

In fact, most us do both things and do them all the time. We side with someone who has different philosophical underpinnings inorder to achieve a shorter-term goal and we continue to oppose the premises we disagree with. I have understood this to be what Tibor is saying. For example, I voted for Reagan, but other than that, I have always voted Libertarian - and in both cases it was an expression of my principles while understanding that in each case the person may not have represented all of my important principles. If someone was under attack by a thug I'd be grateful for the help of a bystander, even if he was a priest. And if a cop came to help me out if I'd been robbed, I wouldn't check his religious beliefs. I'm quite sure that Rand would have agreed completely - that is my reading of her. I understand what Jon is saying and what Rand said in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and I don't believe Jon is applying her principles correctly to Tibor's article. But then I think I already said this, didn't I?

Friday, April 20, 2007 - 9:25pm

Bill,

"Leonard Peikoff once remarked, "There are two ways to destroy an idea: One is to attack it outright; the other is to defend it badly."

A good idea, one that truly represents reality, cannot be destroyed. I prefer to disregard the hysteria of Piekoff and Trager. Capitalism is here to stay. In spite of what "chicken little" Trager says, collectivism has taken a pounding in the twentieth century that it will not recover from. The intelligence and awareness of people throughout the world is growing. The whole world will see what the productivity of a free society can bring and what brutality comes of a collectivist one. Eventually no one will believe the lies of the thugs of the world. I appreciate the point of view and optimism of Dr. Machan. I have no use for "gloom and doom" Ayn Rand cyphers like Trager.

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 7:40am

My optimism, by the way, stems from historical awareness: over the long run, liberty has made great strides. Of course, it has also had setbacks. Human beings, having free will, cannot be counted on to continue, automatically, any trend but need to constantly apply themselves. Eternal vigilance is, indeed, the price of liberty. So while there have been setbacks on several fronts, there have also been major improvements—some of which, by the way, many overlook, e.g., that there is no longer any slavery in the USA, no longer massive state sanctioned and enforced segregation either, no conscription, no fairness doctrine, etc., etc. It is a mixed bag, of course, but by no means the doom and gloom scenario depicted by the likes of Robert Bork (in his Slouching Toward Gomorrah).

(Edited by Machan on 4/21, 11:18pm)

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:38am

Mike wrote,

A good idea, one that truly represents reality, cannot be destroyed. I prefer to disregard the hysteria of Piekoff and Trager. Capitalism is here to stay.

But we don't have capitalism; we have a mixed economy. So, is what you're saying that the mixed economy is here to stay? I hope you're wrong about that. ;-) But rejecting the mixed economy and embracing capitalism will take more than a recognition that communism is a failed system. It will take an understanding of the reasons for communism's failure. And that understanding can only be provided by a sound philosophy. It was philosophy that brought us collectivism; it will take philosophy to bring us capitalism and freedom. Do you think that what has replaced communism in Russia today is capitalism? It's simply another version of statism.

In spite of what "chicken little" Trager says, collectivism has taken a pounding in the twentieth century that it will not recover from.

Consider what is taking place right now in Latin America.

* For the past eight years, President Hugo Chavez — a self-proclaimed Communist and friend of Fidel Castro — has been tightening the vise of dictatorship on Venezuela, the region's key oil-producing country (and the source of much of our imported fuel).

* Next door in Brazil, Latin America's largest, most populous nation, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been consolidating a Marxist regime.

* In Argentina, President Nestor Kirchner reversed 15 years of Argentine policy by re-establishing ties with Cuba and cozying up to Castro and Hugo Chavez.

* Much of Colombia is controlled by FARC, the Communist narco-terrorists who have been waging a murderous terrorist war for 40 years, and whose mission is to establish a communist-agrarian state.

* In Bolivia, Evo Morales, "indigenous" activist and leader of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, is currently the president, and less than a year ago sized control of the national gas industry.

* In Nicaragua, Communist Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega assumed the office of president at the beginning of the year.

The intelligence and awareness of people throughout the world is growing. The whole world will see what the productivity of a free society can bring and what brutality comes of a collectivist one.

They won't "see" it without an understanding of why collectivism leads to brutality. They'll simply associate the brutality with the particular leaders in charge, not with the system itself.

Eventually no one will believe the lies of the thugs of the world. I appreciate the point of view and optimism of Dr. Machan. I have no use for "gloom and doom" Ayn Rand cyphers like Trager.

Ayn Rand ciphers? Mike, you don't consider Ayn Rand a cipher, do you? Then why apply that label to her defenders? Without the proper philosophy, people will return time and again to the altruist-collectivist ideal, despite "empirical" evidence of its failure. They'll do it, because they believe that collectivism is morally justified and the only alternative is capitalist "exploitation."

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/22, 11:42am)

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 2:54pm

Bill, I couldn't have said it any better than you did in your last post. Excellent.

One thing I'll add now though: We don't even have to look at what's happening in other countries around the world to be legitimately concerned about capitalism's future.

Consider this brief political snapshot of what's been happening in the good ol' USA over the past decade or so:

1. The burdensome US debt has skyrocketed to an insane level under President Bush and a Republican Congress (now under control of the Democrats).

2. Centralized control of the awful US public education system continues unabated under the Republicans' so-called No Child Left Behind Act.

3. A disastrous national healthcare system appears just around the corner, with all the Democratic presidential hopefuls vocally supporting the idea and none of the Republicans vocally opposing it.

4. Personal privacy is under assault with the passage of the Patriot Act and other measures intended (supposedly) to thwart terrorists that dispense with legal warrants.

5. The cost of energy is rising, as Environmentalist controls continue to stifle domestic energy production and push for more funding of "alternative" (ie, unscientific) energy sources.

6. Free speech, though still a strong feature of American culture, is facing serious governmental incursions in the form of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, greater FCC fines, and "free speech zones" on in public places.

Contrary to Mike's claim, I'm not saying that doomsday is here and there's no time to turn the situation around. However, that won't happen without an overall shift in the culture's philosophical (ie, metaphysical/epistemic/ethical) viewpoint. Everything else is just window dressing.

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:02pm

Bill,

"But we don't have capitalism; we have a mixed economy. So, is what you're saying that the mixed economy is here to stay?"

Well, an anarchist will say any government based society no matter how small the government is a "mixed" economy. So, from their point of view I guess I am saying that. From a reasonable point of view, no.

"But rejecting the mixed economy and embracing capitalism will take more than a recognition that communism is a failed system. It will take an understanding of the reasons for communism's failure."

Not every person needs to understand. I don't need to understand the chemistry of combustible gases to know not to put my hand in a fire the second time.

"It was philosophy that brought us collectivism; it will take philosophy to bring us capitalism and freedom. Do you think that what has replaced communism in Russia today is capitalism? It's simply another version of statism."

Very few people are interested in the technical details of academic philosophy let alone objectivism. Ayn Rand contributed to convincing a small army of intellectuals of the moral basis of capitalism. This small army of intellectuals are on the front lines writing articles and books, participating in discussions, teaching classrooms full of students. I consider Tibor one of these intellectuals, doing the hard work of convincing ordinary non-philosophers that it is in their self interest to support individual freedom and capitalism. I also consider the libertarian and free market organizations valuable allies in the cause of freedom. I also admire and respect people like Thomas Sowell as invaluable allies.

My personal vision of the world is not to have every person in the world understand the detailed technical language of objectivist philosophy. I want people to accept and support free markets and individual rights for the reason that it is in their self interest. Any strategies that convince them of this fact, ultimately resulting in a freer, safer world, I support. It will take a long time, there are a lot of hatchets to bury. But the reality is, freedom and capitalism ARE in people's self interest. Appealing to peoples self interest to make a better world has the advantage of being the truth. Being and optimist, I believe the "truth will out", so to speak.

If you don't mind, I will repeat here what I said in an email recently:

The majority of people will not learn the buzzwords of philosophy anymore than they will learn the specific terminology and methods of any highly technical specialty. But they can be persuaded by appeal to their self interest. The majority of decent people have something they are good at, what they do for a living, where they use reason and logic. Appealing to the best in people works. Self righteousness, moralism and claiming absolute certainty because "Ayn Rand said this" and "Ayn said that" will have no more success than the Jehovah's witnesses are successful in converting the world.

I found Jon Tragers continued badgering of Tibor Machen over a difference of opinion intolerable and idiotic and said so. I am unmoved by his claims of absolute certainty and demonstrated objectivity.

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 7:37am

Pathetic attempt at a rebuttal to Bill's post, Mike. Maybe you should go back to name-calling.

Mike: "Well, an anarchist will say any government based society no matter how small the government is a "mixed" economy. So, from their point of view I guess I am saying that. From a reasonable point of view, no."

Huh? What anarchists say has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that the U.S. economy today is thoroughly mixed between private enterprise and government controls. It's more capitalist than most other countries, of course, but that doesn't mean what we have today is capitalism.

Mike: "Not every person needs to understand [the reasons for socialism's collapse]."

No one said every person needs to do anything. But most people have to accept the basic principles underlying capitalism if we ever want to have a free society.

Mike: "Very few people are interested in the technical details of academic philosophy let alone objectivism....My personal vision of the world is not to have every person in the world understand the detailed technical language of objectivist philosophy."

Who said otherwise here? Not me, and not Bill (though I can't speak to what he believes).

Whether or not most people understand Ayn Rand's technical theory of concept-formation, for instance, is fundamentally different than whether or not most people understand the broad issue of reason vs. skepticism or mysticism. Reason is logically supportive of capitalism; skepticism or mysticism is not. What I'm arguing for is agreement on broad philosophical principles amongst the advocates of capitalism.

Mike: "I found Jon Tragers continued badgering of Tibor Machen over a difference of opinion intolerable and idiotic and said so. I am unmoved by his claims of absolute certainty and demonstrated objectivity."

My "continued badgering" was merely responses to Tibor's statements, which he continued to post. If he had dropped it instead of continuing to post irrelevancies, I would have dropped it also.

Regarding my "claim of absolute certainty," I don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding my claim of "demonstrated objectivity," you haven't pointed out where I have an irrational bias toward a particular conclusion, so I think that claim is justified. My posts have included objective facts, including the last one about the political context of the contemporary USA, which you ignored.

Oh and as a minor aside, it's Machan, not Machen (for the second time on this thread).

(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/23, 7:54pm)

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 8:44am

"Pathetic attempt at a rebuttal to Bill's post, Mike."

Thus you illustrate your incompetence at having a discussion. I spend an hour and a half explaining myself, you start with an insult.

"But most people have to accept the general principles underlying capitalism if we ever want to have a free society"

That's exactly what I think. And that's what the libertarian think tanks, FEE, CATO, etc., and Tibor are capable of doing and I believe have more chance of success than your belligerent approach.

"What I'm arguing for is agreement on broad philosophical principles amongst the advocates of capitalism."

It doesn't sound to me that your demand is "broad" or "general". People only need to be convinced of the trader principle: don't use force. Don't use government as a means to make a living, to "redistribute". Don't use government as a giant protection racket. I would be happy if most people were willing to go back to the original constitution, to start with. I'm perfectly happy coexisting with, trading with, Christians or anyone else who only want to be left alone and don't want any handouts from government and don't desire that their beliefs be legislated.

"Oh and as a minor aside, it's Machan, not Machen (for the second time on this thread)."

Do you get a "two'fer" by repeating this? You get to annoy Tibor Machan and Mike Erickson in one jab?

Again I apologize for the misspelling.

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:40am

Mike: "Thus you illustrate your incompetence at having a discussion. I spend an hour and a half explaining myself, you start with an insult."

We're not having a gentlemanly discussion, Mike. I don't feel I have to respect someone who starts out by calling me an idiot (by contrast, I said your last post was a pathetic rebuttal, not that you are a pathetic person). As far as spending an hour and a half on it, I hope you're exaggerating.

Mike: "It doesn't sound to me that your demand is "broad" or "general". People only need to be convinced of the trader principle: don't use force."

Wow. So what you're saying is that for a culture to achieve capitalism and for the system to be sustained, the only thing most people need to grasp is one social principle? Then of what value is Objectivism? A purely Platonic one?

Objectivism is a full philosophical system. As such, it provides many answers to philosophical questions. However, it has only a few fundamental principles. These principles were stated by Ayn Rand herself in her column "Introducing Objectivism." It's these basic principles that form the necessary underpinning for capitalism. If you compromise on these few basic principles, you effectively forfeit your case. To understand why, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

You might also comment on my post about the USA's current political context, if you want to maintain that I'm being "hysterical."

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:48pm

It is actually not so easy to ascertain just how free a society the USA is today. It is certainly only an approximately free society, but whether it is more or less free than it was, say, in 1840, 1895, 1923, 1953, or 1999, is difficult to tell without some very detailed examination. After all, the abolition of slavery was a huge improvement in the direction of making the country free; so was the abolition of segregation and the repeal of prohibition and, especially, of the draft. Of course, the increase in the regimentation of the economy diminished freedom considerably, as has the increase of taxation and "the war on drugs". On the other hand, some strengthening of bona fide civil liberties, as well as certain improvements in due process within the criminal law, constitute improvements. Certain elements of the Patriot Act and similar measures are, of course, reactionary, but then so were some of the measures Abraham Lincoln implemented. I am not qualified to make a determination of just how closely America has approximated a fully free society at different stages of its history but I have a pretty clear sense that the issue isn't a simple one. And I am also confident that it has more closely approximated a fully free society than most European countries, especially during the Soviet era. Yet, I am not sure whether New Zealand, Australia, Sweden (which, though heavily taxed, enjoys a less regulated economy than the US), Switzerland and Lichtenstein are perhaps comparably free. (BTW, it is too bad that some of the exchanges have turned so acrimonious when the topics being touched upon are so vital and could use a lot more light than heat.)

Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 7:57am

Economically, there's no question the USA is far more mixed between capitalism and socialism today than it was, for instance, a century ago in 1900. I don't think I need to list all of the federal programs and agencies that didn't exist back then, do I? Anyone who's remotely familiar with American history knows that. Despite the culture's amazing technological advances, government mandates and taxes have continued to proliferate. Have there been minor victories along the way? Sure. But the fact remains that a cntury ago the economy was much freer than it is today.

And unless we espouse the basic philosophical principles underlying capitalism, a century from now America will be much less free economically than it is today.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/26, 4:35pm)