About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Request for comment upon:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/husley6.html


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Terry, you wrote
Ayn Rand famously advocated “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.” It’s time for the Randians to put up or shut up on that score. Let them translate this sound bite into a specific Constitutional amendment, if they can.
Ayn Rand also said that a philosophical and cultural revolution must precede a political one. You can't expect political change until and unless the cultural and philosophical groundwork has been laid, and the latter has a long way to go in our society. You can't expect results without causes. If a constitutional amendment for the separation of state and economics were proposed today, it would fail abysmally.

This is one of the critiques of libertarianism that Objectivists are making -- that the libertarians rush into politics without a proper foundation and process of education. We're not even close to achieving the kind of political consensus needed for the passage of a constitutional amendment banning state intervention into economic affairs.

- Bill

Post 2

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dwyer says:

This is one of the critiques of libertarianism that Objectivists are making -- that the libertarians rush into politics without a proper foundation and process of education. We're not even close to achieving the kind of political consensus needed for the passage of a constitutional amendment banning state intervention into economic affairs.

I ask:

Would this include laws against fraud and torts punishing breach of contract?

Bob Kolker


Post 3

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Objectivist ideas relating to polics generally do not want standard laws against fraud and breech of contract eliminated.  Some anarchists may claim this to be the case, but Rand was clear about this.  Laws against theft, fraud and breach of contract are rational because the underlying premise is that people are getting along on voluntary, consensual arrangements and only when one party initiates a violation of that principle should the government get involved.   

The types of interventions into economics that Bill is presumably referring to would be any sort of wealth redistribution scheme, as well as regulations on business done for the "greater good". 


Post 4

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Was it my imagination or wasn't a constitutional amendment depicted by Rand in "Atlas Shrugged"? In the final chapter, isn't Judge Narragansett adding an amendment along the lines of (I paraphrase) "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of trade or restricting the exercise therof"?

It seems as though a specific constitutional amendment is a no-brainer. I don't understand what the controversy is supposed to be.


Post 5

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The controversy, Richard, is that it doesn't stand a ghost of chance of passing. So, why introduce it?

Judge Narragansett was amending the Constitution at the beginning of a new society and a new age, among people who agreed with and supported it.

Rand would never have recommended a Constitutional amendment against laws abridging the freedom of production and trade in today's society.

- Bill

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.