The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Nebton's picture

    Rand/Thrasymachus, Marx, and Dostoyevsky

    By Nebton on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 9:42am |

    With the lack of regulation leading to catastrophic failure of our "free market" system, in turn leading to calls for increased calls for regulation, it's no surprise that the virtues of Ayn Rand are being extolled once again. Although I have no problem with her as an author, or even as a philosopher, I do have a problem with taking her ideas out of historical context, and attributing to them a greater worth than I think they deserve.

    Ayn Rand's "selfishness as a virtue" is not a new idea. The Greek philosopher Thrasymachus voiced a similar idea, commonly translated as "injustice is virtue". From Matson's A History of Philosophy,

    But far from saying that by nature all men are equal, they held that on the contrary men, like beasts, are naturally unequal, and what is natural is for every man to get what he can by any means. Law, morality, fair play, everything that the Greek summed up in the notion of "justice," is a conventional artificial obstacle that a clever man will circumvent-and be a better man, a more excellent, "virtuous" man, for doing it. "Injustice is virtue."

    It is easier to understand this philosophy by knowing the history of Greek philosophy up to this point: several iterations of philosophers had attempt to separate the natural from the conventional, working from the basis that the natural is equivalent to the virtuous (similar arguments today can be heard from certain corners of the homophobic world), but up until Thrasymachus' radical re-analysis of what is natural, most philosophers held that what we would consider virtuous was, in fact, natural. One supposes that they were trying to rationally justify virtue without appealing to metaphysics. (Plato's great-uncle Critias explained the Greek pantheon of gods as an invention by wise men to keep the masses from breaking the laws necessary for social order, but I'll save a more indepth look into this interesting philosopher for another post.)

    (Interesting tidbit about Ayn Rand: she saw health warnings on cigarettes as a socialist conspiracy. Non-ironically, she was a regular smoker and died of lung cancer.)

    All of this is not to say that her ideas weren't influential (they were), or that they don't have some merit (they do), but I do want to stress that her ideas weren't original (though I'm definitely not accusing her of plagiarism), and, in my opinion, they're flawed because of assumptions she makes about human nature as well as failing to appreciate emergent behaviors. (Emergent behaviors are behaviors that exist in a collective that don't exist in any one individual. Emergent behaviors can be seen in the actions of bees, ants, and neural networks, as well as in humans.)

    Ironically, Ayn Rand's theories therefore remind me very much of Karl Marx's. In my opinion, he also made untenable assumptions about human nature, and he also failed to appreciate emergent behaviors. In both Rand and Marx's case, it's not hard to forgive them this oversight as the proper study of emergent behaviors is fairly new, in my opinion. However, one author I think had a much better grasp of human nature, despite preceding them both, is Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In Notes From Underground, he makes the excellent observation that if some genius were to discover a set of scientific principles that would make each of us perfectly happy (an idea that was inspired by reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species), we would not follow these principles, because we cannot be truly happy following any rules. Although perhaps not rigorous from a logician's perspective, he effectively makes an argument reductio ad absurdum that no set of rules will ever make us happy, and that's true whether it's completely free-market capitalism, Marxism, or a semi-regulated semi-free-market capitalism with quasi-socialistic safety nets thrown in (or however you want to describe our current system). Of course, one could argue that neither Rand nor Marx were interested in happiness, but were pursuing other goals for us, such as freedom. Furthermore, Rand's disciples might argue that their Way is one of No Rules, just as many an atheist will argue that their Way is one of No Beliefs. (Not all atheists, mind you. I'm an atheist, and I'm perfectly comfortable talking about my beliefs, but I'll also save that for another post. Probably the same one where I discuss Critias.) As you can probably guess, I don't buy into the "No Rules" argument as the strongest will always make rules (refer back to Thrasymachus). It's up to us to help decide whether the strongest are the many or the few. I could go on, but for now I'll leave it be as this post already seems a tad bit too long.

    (Cross-posted at TPM: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/nebton/2009/04/randthrasymachus-marx-and-dost.php)

    Comments

    Great post, Nebton. Thanks for contributing. I look forward to your next post on Thrasymachus. ;)

    But if Ayn Rand is derivative of anyone, it has to be Nietzsche. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche argues that the noble warrior races of classical times equated good with strength and power. The weak, slavish castes (Jews and later, Christians) neutered the barbarian warriors by transforming the good into an altruistic principle that favored the weak, e.g. the meek shall inherit the earth. Nietzsche hopes for a new class of men who will recover the old sense of good and infuse the barbarian spirit with modern science and knowledge.

    Strip away the racism overtones, and that to me sounds just like John Galt and friends, separating themselves from the small people who praise mediocrity. As I wrote once before, I can't stand it when Rand lovers imagine that objectivism is a profound, coherent, or original philosophy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 10:24am

    Well, you very well might be right about Rand being derivative of Nietzsche, but in that case Nietzsche is being derivative of Thrasymachus. And, unlike Rand, I think he probably knew it.

    I should clarify that I'm no expert on phiolosophy, having taken a single course on the matter over two decades ago. I'm just currently reading a book on the topic (the aforementioned text by Matson), and I'm finding it incredibly interesting, so I thought I'd share. As you might guess from what I've written here, I'm currently still on the ancient Greeks. :)

    Oh, and thanks for the thanks.


    by Nebton on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 10:30am

    Fair enough. You can correct my physics, and I'll correct your philosophy. Though I've never actually read Thrasymachus. I just know him as a character in the Republic. I'm now curious about how fairly Plato treated his arguments.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 10:46am

    have to admit i like posts that are interesting and informative, even if i'm not quite sure of their point Laughing. honestly, i'm too weak and brainwashed and stupid to feel comfortable with the philosophies of rand or nietzche or Thrasymachus (who i admittedly was not familiar with until this post) - they just seem so damn cold and cruel.

    so i'm curious, what are the emergent behaviors of humans that marx and rand failed to take into consideration in their philosophizing and which dostoyevsky argued will makes us unhappy following any set of rules?

    and what about machiavelli - i know his theories dealt more in the political realm (at least the ones I'm familiar with) but don't they also have similarities with rand?


    by Deadman on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 12:13pm

    Thanks. I'm not so sure of its point, either, to be completely honest. :)

    As for emegent behaviors, I'm more familiar with them in neural networks than in social networks, but I'm convinced we can find them in social networks. Lest you think I think more of my opinion than it's worth (which I probably do, actually), I don't claim to have a better theory. Dostoyevsky certainly doesn't have a better theory—he just makes a cogent argument for why it's hard to come up with one.

    As for Machiavelli, I think that one difference might be that I don't know if he ever claimed his strategies were virtuous, just effective. I'd like for Genghis to jump in here with his take on it, though.


    by Nebton on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 12:23pm

    Emergent behaviors is Nebton's critique, and I'll leave that to him/her. But I'll support the larger point that philosophers are usually terrible sociologists. From Plato to Marx to Rand, they spin out idealistic utopian societies that have absolutely no chance of being realized in their imagined form. For instance, Marx's version of socialism required that human beings be selfless contributors to the common good. He knew that people were selfish of course, but he argued that the trait was not essential to human nature but rather arose under capitalist conditions. Eliminate the bad influences, and we'll all just get along.

    The utopias do serve philosophical purposes. While not a blueprint for a perfect society, Marx's conception of socialism exposed many of the flaws of industrial capitalism. His ideas are now embedded in our collective consciousness and institutions, and we take for granted the labor reforms that were initiated by movements inspired by Marx. A 19th century capitalist would be shocked by the regulation of 21th century markets.

    Even Rand's utopia serves a philosophical purpose. Our institutions do often reward mediocrity and limit individuality, and we need to be aware that efforts to level playing fields carry real risks of discouraging success. There error lies in dogmatically believing Rand's vision (and in failing to be aware of its intellectual forebears).

    As for Machiavelli, he was the original modern realist, so his approach contrasts markedly from Rand's idealism. He offers no vision of an ideal society, just proscriptions for manipulating people in order to achieve an ordered one. While both Machiavelli and Rand venerate strength, I doubt that Machiavelli's objectives and methods would have held much appeal to her.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 1:30pm

    Assertions are easy and free of cost. Citations and substantiation, on the other hand are costly. They require knowing what you are talking about which in this case, would entail more reading than you were willing to invest. So until you can provide some evidence that any principle of Rand's philosophy bears even the remotest similarity to your Thrasymachus quote, your point is just pixels adrift in the blogosphere.

    That error pales, however, in the presence of "emergent behaviors" that necessitate the reification of a collective noun. While behavior can have different meanings in different contexts, in the context of philosophy, it can only refer to the action(s) initiated by the mind of a human being. No group has a mind. No group of people can behave independent of its component persons.

    Then there is your error on Objectivism and happiness: Happiness — Ayn Rand Lexicon

    And the "No Rules" assumption ignores the central political principle of Rand's radical capitalism:

    No person may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by any other person.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 2:18pm

    Emergent behaviors are a very real thing, and an area that I do research in, albeit it in the form of neural networks and not social networks. Your assumption that they don't exist seems to be based on nothing more than that you don't understand them. I can't claim to understand them either, but I've seen them in action.

    What exactly are you looking for me to cite? I'll be happy to provide citations if there's a particular fact that you're challenging. Otherwise, it appears you're just trying to ignore my dialog by pretending that you know more than I do.

    And you're right that I'm oversimplifying Rand's radical capitalism. As with Genghis, I think there's a lot for thought in Rand's philosophy, although presumably not as much as you think. Howeever, let me ask you: how does one enforce the central political principle? Try to think it through thoroughly before providing an answer. This is exactly one of those cases where I think Rand is demonstrating either a lack of human understanding, or an unwillingness to think her ideas all the way through.


    by Nebton on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 2:28pm

    Some citations on emergent behaviors:

    http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~pablo/thesis/html/node112.html

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17416173?dopt=Abstract

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V0V-4HTM5JK-G...

    Emergent behaviors in sociology:

    http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/634?mode=full

    http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/604/1/82

    Matson's A History of Philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Wallace-I-Matson/dp/B000L28UU4/...

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


    by Nebton on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 2:45pm

    Nebton,


    I did not assume emergent behaviors do not exist. I only corrected your assertion that groups can be said to behave independent of the actions of the individual units that comprise them. You have overextended the applicability of whatever concept you are dealing with. In principle a collective can — by definition — never be anything more than the sum of its parts. You asserted that a group of people has some kind of capacity of consciousness and capacity to act above and beyond the capacities of the individuals in the group. But since a "group" is not an entity, it cannot have such capacities. Communist socialists and fascist socialists spent the greater part of the last century trying to erect nations on the foundation of that very error and every one imploded or exploded. They are still trying. Don't go there.

    The citations I request regarding Trasymachus are not meant to be from him but from Rand. You have claimed a similarity in their ideas. I did not recognize any identification or principle of Rand's that could be said to be similar to that quote. You have asked us to simply take your word for it that the philosophy is similar, but you have not bothered to show that the claim actually applies. 

    In one sense, it is not a fair request of you, since it is already evident from your post that you know very little of what the philosophy is about, and you have merely made some great leaping assumptions from reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Your "bright idea" that nothing is new with Rand shoved aside the usual requisite self discipline that might have made you ask yourself before flaunting your shallow knowledge of the philosophy, "Maybe I should look up some of her principles just to make sure this idea will fly. Well, it didn't. It crashed and burned!


    Here is a shortcut to quotes by Rand and others on over 200 subjects so your next attack will be better informed (and way more fun to reply to):


    [That is also where the entry on Happiness is, but I dragged the address in and it does not seem to have made a proper link.]

    And don't give me the "Rand overestimated human beings" stuff. She was from a Jewish family who endured the Russian revolution of 1917, she was reviled and rejected by the world of publishing in the 30's and 40's (until The Fountainhead took off), she was hated by the Libertarians, the anarchists, and the right wingers like William Buckley. She believed in the innate ability of men to be rational and benevolent, but equally in their capacity of volition that enabled them to descend into pure evil at the drop of a hat. 

    And therein lies the base of her politics. Volition = fallibility. The quality and quantity of your life depends on how well you use your mind to guide your actions. Thus individual independence is a primary virtue demanding that one protect oneself from the fallible minds of others. Since the only thing that can interfere with your choices of your actions is physical force, then protection from that is the first and only task of a government.

    The organization of a moral government would not have to be, in principle, very different from our own. But the task it is established and allowed to achieve would be radically more narrow. As now, the government would have a monopoly on the use of force. As was intended, but not followed through on, it would be allowed to do only those things objectified clearly in the Constitution and laws. It would be allowed to use force only in defense against initiated force (as specified in the principle I cited). There would be a system of checks and balances like ours, but stronger, because the government could not fund itself with taxation. Taxation is an inherently coercive act and therefore immoral and may not be legal under any circumstances. The government would also not own anything at all, leasing all it needs in the private market. Thus the people would have through the market an enormously greater control over the government. If mega-corporations decided to fund government for the advertising and good will of it, the people would have added control through their buying power. Under such a government, there would be no way to acquire wealth without offering ever higher value for ever lower prices.

    There is no presumption in this concept about the ability of men to be rational or perfect. They will get the government they deserve. If they are rational and benevolent it will be a good government. If they are not or if they err, it will not be. There is no political system that can guarantee men will be good, because they are volitional. All the more reason to define a government that frees each individual from coercion by others. 

    Under such a government men would be free to be as rational or irrational as they pleased. Nothing would be prohibited except the use or threat of force by one person against another, singly or in groups. Does this look like "injustice is virtue" to you? I think not.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 7:28pm

    I confess to only knowing Rand's philosophy through Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But I know enough of the big ideas to recognize that they are derivative. Worse, they are derivative but don't acknowledge the sources or respond to the challenges that had already been leveled against such sources. That is one of the reasons that academic philosophers don't take her work seriously. Some others:

    The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic. - The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 8:59am

    " Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

    What a fine testament to the bankruptcy of academic philosophy in the 20th century. 

    1. Rand is not hostile towards the state. That is why the anarchists reject her politics. Rand unequivocally advocates a government and demands that that government be the sole manager of the use of physical force. 

    2. Her hostility to anarchism is due to the fact that in order for men to be truly free from coercion, the moral use of physical force in defense against the immoral initiation of physical force for gain must be objectified — the rights to be defended, the laws to be enforced, who will be doing the enforcing, when, where, and how, plus all of the pertinent procedures of adjudication, punishment, and restitution must be knowable up front. That is the job only a neutral third party institution subject to checks and balances can achieve.

    Anarchy differs from that by allowing the subjective use of physical force in defense against the initiation of force. The use of force in such a society would be unknowable, unpredictable and uncontrollable. That is why Rand opposed anarchy. The accusation that this is "ill-thought out and unsystematic" is nothing more than a cheap shot from — to put it politely — an ill-informed hack padding pages with his own self-nurtured ignorance. 

    Rand's opposition to taxation is also consistent with the central principle:

    No person may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by its owner 

    Taxation is inherently coercive. It consists of majorities enlisting the power of the state to forcibly take values from minorities to use and distribute for their own purposes. Taxation is indistinguishable from any other form of theft. What is ill-thought out about that?

    The myopic writer was unable to see, as Rand did that the only political issue of overriding importance to the lives of the members of a society is the issue of force vs. freedom. Every moral and political principle of her philosophy opts for the latter over the former. Every opponent of hers must inevitably opt for the initiation of force for gain in one or more instances in order to disagree with her.

     

     


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 10:48am

    Lots of fancy words and complex sentance structures. But what seems to be missing is an analysis of who does the objectification you seek.

    • In a democracy we have at least the illusion that it is consensus dervied.
    • In a dictatorship that illusion is unecessary.

    Power relation is the true measure, and he who controls the objectification method, controls the people subject to that power.

    The belief in the US is that by accepting citizenship, you accept and assume the responsibilities of paying your taxes. You are essentially checking the box that says you accept the terms of the agreement. If you do not, you should move or set to influencing the concensus controlling the power structure.

    The coersion argument is made by those who want it their way - i.e. they control the objectification process, thereby the power relation.

    On top of all this - the idea that someone can be neutral or objective in a power relation is bunk.


    by elliottness on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:25am

    <i>" But what seems to be missing is an analysis of who does the objectification you seek."</i> Who did the objectification between 1776 and 1789 and thereafter. The validity of a government is not determined by who does the defining, but rather by how well the defining is done. As far as I am concerned, you may do it. But the validity of the government in that case will still depend on whether you have objectively defined the proper relationships among men to be defended and your ability to prove it.

    <i>"The belief in the US is that by accepting citizenship, you accept and assume the responsibilities of paying your taxes."</i> Being born does not constitute a claim by you or any majority over a persons life. There are no unchosen obligations.

    You have failed to make a moral distinction between a majority in a particular region that draws a line around it and coerces everyone in it to leave everyone else alone to be free, and a majority that draws a line around it and declares that because they are a majority they can take what they want from you asserting that you have some unchosen obligation to them.

    Force or freedom, that is the only choice, and it is a moral choice. A majority or consensus that opts for coercion does not become moral by the mere fact that they, the consensus, chose it. Hitler had a consensus, Stalin had a consensus, the founding fathers had a consensus. Consensus is a morally impotent term. It is only the question of force vs freedom that matters.

    <i>"On top of all this - the idea that someone can be neutral or objective in a power relation is bunk."</i>

    Speak for yourself.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 2:55pm

    I do speak for myself. And if you think true objectivism can exist, I hope there is a blog post wherein you try.

    You seem to ignore the fact that there is still *someone* who has to approve of the final moral/objective decision. Who is that? Who am I proving my moral choices to? By what guideline is this proof get measured?

    ______

    As for choices - I did not say being born creates the obligation. I said that by accepting citizenship, you assume those obligations. Sure you do not have that choice until you are older, but that is an obligation your parents burdened you with - not the rest of us. You are welcome to change your citizenship assuming another sovergn nation will accept you.

    If you are inside of some such circle of "majority will", and you do not fulfill your obligations, then you are coerced into doing such. Should you choose not to fulfill those obligations, you will likely lose membership to the aforementioned circle. Tis the nature of groups; either you participate and change from within, or you are on the outside. Those obligations are chosen by having accepted that membership. Not imposed upon you nor "unchosen".


    by elliottness on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 3:14pm

    There are more than a few things that Rand's adherents have in common with Austrian economists, but one rings true above all of the others: They are all equally convinced that the failure of their beloved views to gain traction in academia cannot possibly be due to a lack of merit and can only be explained by the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy of academia at large.

    Come to think of it, they have this in common with paranormal enthusiasts, 9/11 truthers, Christian scientists, etc.


    by DF on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 6:46pm

    "I confess to only knowing Rand's philosophy through Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But I know enough of the big ideas to recognize that they are derivative." If you have only read the novels, how would you know what acknowledgments exist in her non-fiction oeuvre? Why would you expect them to appear in novels? Do you footnote everything you write and say acknowledging your debt to Kant or Hegel or Jesus or Plato or whatever philosophers you are indebted to? Most of what is derivative in your own thinking you are unaware of. Rand was first and foremost an Aristotelian and went to great lengths to isolate the ideas she agreed with and those she did not. She admired Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza. She was early in life an admirer of Neitzsche, but later not. So? What has this to do with the validity of her philosophy. The systematic compilation of her formulations is unique. So? That is just a quantitative judgment of minimal significance. It has been common for a long time for philosophers and professors to shift the emphasis of validity to the process and away from the efficacy of the ideas themselves, because their own ideas could not even pretend to efficacy. By them you seem to have been victimized. I know there was a time when I was. Never again!

    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:08am

    What you are saying is that she really did not know what she wanted other than the Gold Standard and a community that embodies the socialist nature of any tribe. Individuals contributing to the greater good whereby they also benefit.

    Unfortunately all of this gets lost in the great struggle against THEM. In her case it was the Communists.


    by elliottness on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:24am

    "she really did not know what she wanted other than the Gold Standard and a community that embodies the socialist nature of any tribe. Individuals contributing to the greater good whereby they also benefit."

    You have this exactly backwards. In a society freed from coercion it is the quest for one's own benefit that has as a by-product a contribution to the greater good. The only way to benefit is to offer greater values at lower prices. 


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:27pm

    Rand (Speech to U.S. Military Academy, West Point):

    Today's mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man's mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man's life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century.

    Nietzsche (Genealogy of Morals):

    It is [the Jews] who have declared: 'The miserable alone are the good; the poor, the powerless, the low alone are good. The suffering, the deprived, the sick, the ugly are the only pious ones, the only blessed, for them along is there salvation. You, on the other hand, the noble and the powerful, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lascivious, the insatiable, the godless ones...'

    Let me be granted a glimpse, just one glimpse of something complete, wholly successful, happy, powerful, triumphant, something still capable of inspiring fear! A glimpse of man who justifies mankind, of a compensatory redeeming stroke of luck on the part of man, a reason to retain faith in mankind! For this is how things stand: the withering and leveling of European man constitutes our greatest danger.

    Substitute the Jews for Kant and 19th century Europe for 20th century America and voila, instant Nietzsche.

    BTW, Rand's is one of the worst misreadings of Kant's moral philosophy that I've ever seen. One reason for teaching philosophy students to footnote is to force them to read carefully and defend their interpretations. And yes, I do footnote and address the obvious derivations when I write philosophy. Sometimes even when I blog.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:35pm

    I only corrected your assertion that groups can be said to behave independent of the actions of the individual units that comprise them.

    I made no such assertion, because I don't subscribe to the belief that you have assigned to me.

    You asserted that a group of people has some kind of capacity of consciousness and capacity to act above and beyond the capacities of the individuals in the group.

    I also did not make this assertion, because I aslo don't believe that a group of people has some capacity of consciousness. I'm not sure where you got that idea from, as I agree (presumably) with you that such a concept is highly unlikely to be true. I merely describe emergent behaviors of systems. Such behaviors do not require deliberative intent, and I never asserted otherwise.

    I will not pretend to know more about Rand than you, and I've never claimed to be an expert. I was merely expressing my opinion, and if I waited until I understood everything before doing so, I would never state anything. You would probably find this preferable, but as your interpretations of my comments demonstrate, it is not a practice that you follow yourself. Here is one quotation (possibly misunderstood) that does seem very similar: "The greatest virtue of all: The ability to make money" Now, granted, there are some significant differences between them as well that I glossed over. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I assumed too much of the reader to not take my assertion as literally as you seem to have taken it. If you want another quote demonstrating some similarity (but not equivalence): "It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." Do you not see the similarity to the Thrasymachus quote I provided earlier?

    You're also right to criticize me for not giving her enough credit for recognizing human failings. However, although she acknowledges it, I do not see how she addresses human fallibility. I do not see any framework for improving government in her philosophy that takes into account human fallibility. If it exists, could you point it out for me? You talk about taxation being inherently illegal (which I'll take to mean immoral, since it clearly is legal in a Constitional sense), but how does the government even act to defend us without these funds, while at the same time recognizing human fallibility? Contrast your answer to functional anarchy. The idea of having mega-corporations voluntarily fund the government seems to fail to take into account that they will be funding it for their own needs. What they would be funding would be, in essence, no different than funding their own private militia, which is functional anarchy. I see no functional blueprint for how it would be otherwise.

    You're right that she technically advocates against anarchy. However, from everything I've read from her and her supporters, the logical conclusion of her philosophy would essentially be anarchy: those with power (money) effectively deciding (since they control the purse strings) which laws will be enforced. Convince me it is otherwise.

    Does this look like "injustice is virtue" to you?

    Yes, the result would be the same.

    To conclude, let me reiterate that I'm no expert in philosophy, nor in Ayn Rand. That does not preclude me from having commenting on either, just as you not being an expert on my opinions has not precluded you from commenting on mine. I do sense an anger in you directed at me, but perhaps I'm merely reading into what you've written something that is not there.


    by Nebton on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 2:29pm

    "Emergent behaviors are behaviors that exist in a collective that don't exist in any one individual."

    If the individuals are not doing the behaving, and you admit that the group is not a behaving entity, who or what is the actor in "emergent behaviors"?

    ------------------

    "I do not see how she addresses human fallibility. I do not see any framework for improving government in her philosophy that takes into account human fallibility"

    If you hold your life as your highest value and recognize that the quality and quantity of that life depends on choosing the actions that will fulfill those goals in accordance with the nature of what you are — a human being — then independence from the fallibility of other minds is a high priority. The moral mandate to sustain your autonomy in making your own choices and applying them through your own chosen actions addresses the issue of human fallibility in the context of ethics. 

    Politics is the extension of ethics in the context of an individual's life into the context of individuals living together in a society. The extension of the ethical mandate to sustain individual autonomy is recognized in politics by the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Since the only threat to those rights is physical force, a moral government will seek to eradicate the use of force in human interrelationships. Therefore, the ban on initiated force for gain addresses human fallibility and provides a framework for dealing with it morally in the context of politics. 

    ----------------------

    There are two separate answers in two separate contexts to funding a government without taxation. The first has been amply addressed. If the initiation of force for gain is immoral, then taxation is immoral. The only code that can support taxation is the one that starts, "the end justifies the means." Where's the morality in that?

    The second context is the concrete, logistical question of how it would be organized. This question is not a valid question at all until the issue of morality is settled. If taxation is coercion and therefore immoral, a sufficient answer to the second question would be, "any way the citizens at that time want to finance government so long as no coercion is used." The option to give up and resort back to taxation cannot be labeled as "practical" after it has been recognized as immoral. The immoral is never practical under any circumstances.

    And given the long time span before any country could ever be free enough that the question would be pressing, it is ludicrous to try from here to define precise methods. I think about it occasionally, and as you see I make suggestions. But the reactions are always the same, because those who read them are judging them in an entirely unrelated context, today. 

    The whole world takes coercion and their own victimization for granted. Rand calls that the "sanction of the victim." Who among you grew up believing in and striving for your own freedom from coercion? By what standard do you persist in advocating coercion of each other by the state in your name? Why is the coercion you advocate any better than Hitler's or Stalin's just because it is smaller? And how does your coercion translate into "justice is virtue" if Rand's antipathy to coercion translates in your mind to "injustice is virtue". You can start be defining justice and by taking a position of the question of freedom vs. force instead of just throwing rocks.



    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 3:46pm

    If the individuals are not doing the behaving, and you admit that the group is not a behaving entity, who or what is the actor in "emergent behaviors"?

    The group is a behaving entity, but it's not a conscious entity. I know this might sound like hogwash to you, but it's an area where I'm involved in active research on (and I pointed you to several papers in multiple domains on it), so I can tell you it's a very real phenomenon. You seemed to accept that, but now you seem to be challenging it again.

    As for your two seperate answers with respect to taxation, I do not think they are seperate at all. If there is no concrete logistical way to avoid taxation while also avoiding anarchy (as I maintain), then one is forced to choose "the lesser of two evils". I put this phrase in quotes, because I'm not accepting that taxation is inherently evil, as it is a necessity. Furthermore, as Genghis has pointed out, you are free to move to someplace that does not impose taxation if that is your wish. We do not prevent emmigration in this country.


    by Nebton on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 5:12pm

    "I do sense an anger in you directed at me, but perhaps I'm merely reading into what you've written something that is not there."

    I can sense that too from a different perspective. First off I am easily angered by comments that merely characterize a person or idea without following up with an explanation to back it up, especially if I or someone else points that out and the commenter keeps on doing it. If there is a lot of that, it will infect comments to those who are not doing that. 

    On the other hand I remind myself of those times when I am trying to figure out some complex software and I tell my wife, "the kids that wrote these instructions have been in computers so long, they have long since forgotten what they didn't know when they started. I am no doubt guilty of that when it comes to these ideas. 

    I have been an Objectivist for 45 years and during that time I constantly challenged the ideas and my understanding of them and my ability to explain them in simple terms to others. It has never disappointed me, and I have not yet been able to prove Rand wrong on substantive principles of the philosophy. 

    And that is one of the most valuable lessons I learned from her. In the long-run, it is only the identifications and principles — the ideas — that matter. It may seem simple, but it is the most difficult thing to fully grasp and implement.

    In that light, whether I appear angry or not should not matter to anyone but me. You should not let that distract you from the task at hand: judging the ideas and their relevance to your life. Sometimes I like the fact that the aggressive debating style of Objectivists or the quirky behavior of Rand and her early circle of fans, or flaunting the word selfishness serves one valuable purpose. The higher the barrier to those considering her ideas, the more genuine will be the persuasion when it comes. It is a weir that filters out the flotsam while clearing a path for the honest minds who are focused on the content. 


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 4:24pm

    With regards to your anger, I maintain that it inhibits your effectiveness as a communicator. I sometimes suffer from the same problem on issues that are dear to me (this one is not), so I sympathize with your difficulties here.

    I have been an Objectivist for 45 years and during that time I constantly challenged the ideas and my understanding of them and my ability to explain them in simple terms to others. It has never disappointed me, and I have not yet been able to prove Rand wrong on substantive principles of the philosophy.

    I suspect that's because no one has ever implemented her theories. "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

    The higher the barrier to those considering her ideas, the more genuine will be the persuasion when it comes.

    That sounds like an excuse to me, and not a very persuasive one at that. I think the barriers are as much internal as they are external, as it seems that many Objectivists have not fully thought out its implications.


    by Nebton on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 5:17pm

    "With regards to your anger, I maintain that it inhibits your effectiveness as a communicator."

    Not really. I am never angry in an exchange of ideas, only when I offer ideas and get unsubstantiated characterizations in return. Even then, I will be more patient than most, and then leave before displaying actual anger.

    Time is precious. You can waste a lot of it talking to dishonest minds. But often honest minds are hidden under a pile of bad habits and other times the honest minds are only lurking in the shadows — not part of the active conversation, but paying attention nonetheless. So you have to be careful not to leave too soon and to give them either time to emerge or at least enough to latch onto.

    "I suspect that's because no one has ever implemented her theories."

    You err here in equating the implementation of Objectivism with the implementation of radical capitalism. The former is a philosophy, the latter but one branch of it. There are millions of people all over the world who have implemented her theories every day of their adult life, some like me for a half century since the first wave of serious advocates adopted them in the late 1950's and early 1960's. You do not have to search very far to find the common testimonial, "Ayn Rand revolutionized my life." Few know that because Objectivism has been flying under the radar, concerned only with conveying ideas, because they know that lasting change comes first in philosophy, followed by culture, and then politics is last.

    "That sounds like an excuse to me, and not a very persuasive one at that. I think the barriers are as much internal as they are external, as it seems that many Objectivists have not fully thought out its implications."

    Speaking of inhibiting one's effectiveness as a communicator, this is a classic example of the unsubstantiated characterization. It is an idle assertion rife with negative emotional connotations but devoid of content. What value could any rational person derive from the assertion that unidentified "implications" would negatively affect in an unidentified manner a person's assessment of the efficacy of the philosophy? You have crafted a negative assessment that is immune from rebuttal, because there is nothing in an empty emotion to rebut. In the competition for honest minds, this is where you will lose every time.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 7:14pm

    Allow me to give you a negative assessment that is not immune from rebuttal:

    I've never met an Objectivist who has demonstrated that they have fully thought out its implications. I still do not have an answer for how, in practice, Rand's prescriptions differ from anarchism. Just because she decries anarchism doesn't mean that her recommendations wouldn't result in them if practice on a societal level.

    Give me a practical way of implementing her theories on a societal level. If individuals are voluntarily funding the government, and hence in charge of its purse strings, how are they not also going to dictate which laws are enforced? That's a simple question that I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to yet.


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:28am

    "Give me a practical way of implementing her theories on a societal level."

    Why do you assume it would be implemented differently from the establishment of the United States government. The format of this government was regarded by Rand as close to ideal. That system has not resulted in anarchy for over 200 years. 

    What would be different in an Objectivist society would be the philosophy of most of those who were the voting public. If ever the dominant majority of people living within some country would embrace the principles Rand defined, they would be voting to eliminate the use of physical force in all exchanges of values. Taxation would be gradually reduced and services no one would be willing to pay for in the marketplace would disappear. The Constitution and laws would be re-written in the same way they are and can be today to remove the loopholes that enable government to use force for purposes other than defense against force.

    Anarchy — the subjective use of force — would be outlawed just as it is today. There is no reason to believe it would have any greater chance to overpower the government than it does today. There is nothing about coercive taxation that can guarantee that those legislating and judging and enforcing would be any more or less likely to defend against anarchy. 

    What you are lacking at the moment is a clear idea of the nature of freedom itself. You are trying to argue that freedom is dangerous because it will inevitably lead to anarchy. You are arguing that because people will define the laws, they will necessarily fail. You refuse to admit that it could be possible for a nation of men to learn to be rational and subsequently to succeed in sustaining a free society that eschews anarchy. You are a prisoner of your own cynicism. You have underestimated the capacity of your own species. And, you are grossly underestimating the efficacy of Objectivism. 


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:32am

    Why do you assume it would be implemented differently from the establishment of the United States government.

    Because we have, and always have had, taxation, which is "immoral", after all.

    What you are lacking at the moment is a clear idea of the nature of freedom itself.

    That's a fair statement. However, I think you (and Rand) are also lacking a clear idea of the nature of freedom itself.

    You are a prisoner of your own cynicism.

    What you call cynicism, I call realism. If a nation of men can learn to be rational, then anarchy would work, as they would not need laws being imposed on them. If they're not rational enough to live without laws (and forgive me for thinking they're not), they won't be rational enough to live with laws dictated by the richest among us (i.e., those providing the most funding to the government).


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:28am

    "Because we have, and always have had, taxation, which is "immoral", after all."

    Men are volitional. "Because they never did" has no bearing whatsoever on whether they ever could or would.

    "However, I think you (and Rand) are also lacking a clear idea of the nature of freedom itself." 

    If you are not clear on the prerequisites of freedom yourself, how do you know we are lacking that knowledge. Explain what it is that is wrong with Rand's view that freedom = the absence of coercion, and that if men choose to eradicate it from societal interactions, then they will be free to the degree it is eliminated. Do not make it more complicated than it is.

    "I call realism. If a nation of men can learn to be rational, then anarchy would work"

    A "nation of rational men" does not necessarily mean all men there are perfect. One needs only that the majority be rational enough to grasp the relationship of force to freedom and to recognize that freedom is the necessary goal. 

    Anarchy would not work even if all men were perfect. Because men are volitional you would still never know when or if any one or more of them would suddenly make irrational choices and violate your right to life. The function of a moral government is not only defined by preventing, stopping, and punishing coercion, it is the consequence of that function in making it possible for men to interact with the justifiable <i>expectation</i> of continuing freedom.

    "laws dictated by the richest among us (i.e., those providing the most funding to the government)."

    Another unwarranted assumption. Why would a group of rational men give control of the government to the smallest class of people. If all interactions among men in a free society occur in the marketplace and the government no longer has the power to fund favors and privileges, and its own funding becomes a market action, then the "richest" would actually be at a disadvantage. In such a society every penny becomes a vote. And the poorest block of voters have the most pennies. Sam Walton proved that.



    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 10:36am

    Explain what it is that is wrong with Rand's view that freedom = the absence of coercion, and that if men choose to eradicate it from societal interactions, then they will be free to the degree it is eliminated.

    Well, it's partly a matter of semantics, I suppose, but perhaps that's too complicated for what you're asking for here. There are several forms of coercion, as well as several forms of freedom. We will never be free from coercion, even if we chose to live as hermits. Furthermore, even without coercion, if I didn't have the power to do what I want, then I don't have complete freedom. Complete freedom on the part of one individual leads to less than complete freedom for the individuals whose freedom would be dimished by the first individual. Note that I'm talking about freedoms and not rights.

    Why would a group of rational men give control of the government to the smallest class of people.

    They wouldn't. That's why they wouldn't make funding the government voluntary, since the end effect is to give control to those controlling the purse strings. Do you disagree that those controlling the purse strings ultimately will have control over how that money is spent?


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 10:43am

    "Well, it's partly a matter of semantics, ... There are several forms of coercion, as well as several forms of freedom." 

    The only issue of "semantics" is one of definition. Define your terms and the context in which you use them, and semantics will cease to be a matter of concern. In the context of politics there is only one kind of coercion that matters: physical force. It is the only thing that can interfere with individual autonomy. Similarly, there is only one definition of freedom in that context: freedom from the use of force by others for gain.

    Yes, there are other meanings of force in other contexts. For instance, there is "economic force". But that term uses the word force in a metaphorical sense. It actually refers to undue influence. But undue influence is not a form of coercion. No matter how powerful an "influence" is, one may still choose. Therefore, so-called "economic force" is not a legitimate political concern. 

    "Complete freedom on the part of one individual leads to less than complete freedom for the individuals whose freedom would be dimished by the first individual."

    This is an untenable position. One person's freedom from coercion has no effect whatsoever on any other person's freedom from coercion. To the degree that a government prevents the use of force among men, all men are equally and totally free to act as their own mind dictates. The only thing they cannot do is to interfere by force with that same freedom for others. But that is only logic in action. There is no such thing as the freedom to initiate force. That would be a freedom to deny freedom, an inherent self-contradiction.

    That is an example of objectification so crucial to the establishment of a free society. It is why the battlefield for freedom is being waged first in philosophy and here on blogs and forums and newly in academic institutions where Objectivists are finally gaining positions. There will never be a free society where most of the population cannot define or understand the concept of freedom and force and the relationship between politics and ethics.

    "Do you disagree that those controlling the purse strings ultimately will have control over how that money is spent?"

    I disagree that the purse strings would be controlled by the wealthy. If WalMart is a major contributor to funding the government, that is control by WalMart's customers not by the wealthiest stockholders or executives of the company. Those are in the clutches of the masses. If they misread the wishes of the masses in the slightest way, their losses would be huge and unsustainable. 


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:57pm

    In the context of politics there is only one kind of coercion that matters: physical force.

    I can't think of a single psychologist who would agree with you on that. As I've made clear here, philosophy is not my strong suite. What I hope I've made clear elsewhere, science is. I find the idea that only physical coercion is relevant to be somewhat naive.

    If WalMart is a major contributor to funding the government, that is control by WalMart's customers not by the wealthiest stockholders or executives of the company.

    WalMart would only be a major contributor to the government if they believed it would benefit them. Sure, you might be optimistic and think they might be hoping it would benefit them in a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind of way, but it's much more efficient to look for more direct help. In this case, WalMart is the wealthy who would be controlling the purse strings. It seems like you agree that they'd be controlling the purse strings, but you seem to believe that they wouldn't be able to persuade the masses to follow along in policies that they would not otherwise support. Do you really think it would be hard for a company controlling the purse strings of law enforcement to persuade the masses to follow along?


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:37pm

    "I find the idea that only physical coercion is relevant to be somewhat naive."

    What is naive is imagining that calling something naive is of value to anyone when you do not bother to give them one single example of coercion other than coercion backed by physical force that can interfere with your ability to choose your own actions per your own values. It is a reply as cheap as it is impotent.

    "WalMart would only be a major contributor to the government if they believed it would benefit them."

    My point exactly. And how would they benefit? The same way Budweiser does when they sponser the Super Bowl. And no matter how many times that company full of evil rich people has sponsored it, the power of their money has never enabled them to fix the game. 

    "Do you really think it would be hard for a company controlling the purse strings of law enforcement to persuade the masses to follow along?"

    Your'e kidding right? Big companies get big by slavishly providing exactly what customers want. Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of Coca-Cola's attempt to persuade the public to switch to "New Coke", a sweeter version of the old one with which they were going to clobber Pepsi. I wonder what restaurant that CEO is waiting tables at today.

    But the more pertinent answer to your question is that if they persuade them and do not force them, and if the people freely choose to buy into whatever WalMart preaches, so be it. People get the government they deserve. 

    You also cannot seem to keep in your head the fact that an Objectivist government cannot exist without a dominant portion of the population buying into Rand's idea that they are competent to make up their own mind if they use their capacity of reason and logic.  Those will not be people likely to succumb to the ideas of some corporate CEO when their life and the lives of their family are at stake— unless — they are able to validate the company's recommendations as the right thing to do. 

    And let me caution you about recklessly hurling assertions about how dumb and gullible the masses are, bein' as you're one of them.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:01pm

    This post has confirmed my opinion that in order to adher to an objectivist philosophy, you have to assume that everyone will play by your power rules and agree to your world view.

    You will have to kill those who do not adhere.

    If WalMart is a major contributor to funding the government, that is control by WalMart's customers not by the wealthiest stockholders or executives of the company. Those are in the clutches of the masses. If they misread the wishes of the masses in the slightest way, their losses would be huge and unsustainable.

    Because power works this way??

    • How do you derive your claim that the customers actually control Walmart?
    • If there is nothing to replace Walmart, how is it that the "masses" have such power?

    It sounds like if you merge Objectivism and Scientology, you have the greatest, most unrealistic cult ever imagined.

    (And this response will highlight that fact with absurd narrowness)


    by elliottness on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:40pm

    "This post has confirmed my opinion that in order to adher to an objectivist philosophy, you have to assume that everyone will play by your power rules and agree to your world view."

    How did it do that? To adhere to Objectivist rules for a society of men, one need only refrain from using force against other persons in order to take something away from them. Why is it you think you could resist the temptation to do that and no one else could (knowing that if they did they would land in jail.) 


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:41pm

    Nebton, FYI:

    Paul McKeever, a Canadian Objectivist, has read your piece on TPM and published his commentary on it here:

    http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/04/22/rand-as-nietzsche-talking-points-memo-designed-to-diminish-respect-for-rand/


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 10:59pm

    Never trust Canadians


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:21am

    Forget that, dude. Your Rand-guy could out-bore our Rand-guy, all day long. Brutal.

    by quinn esq on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:32am

    Acknowleged. Advantage Canada.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:51am

    Let's send them both to China. That'd help solidify the ole hegemonic status, eh?

    by quinn esq on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:54am

    Can't do it in good conscience. China tortures Objectivists. Haven't you received the pamphlets at the supermarket?


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:01am

    I would be flattered if this blogger didn't seem like the kind who went for the easiest targets. Clearly I'm no expert on Rand (as I've admitted time and time again), and I admit to having made some mistakes, so it's amusing that he thought it worthy to go after my entry.

    What was really funny was that I was accused of somehow following some herd mentality. Seriously? My argument might have been flawed, but have there really been that many other people comparing her to Thrasymachus?


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:34am

    Hey Nebton. Welcome to Rand-world, eh? Reading them, I shift between two feelings. 1) They're witless. 2) No... more humourless than witless.

    I predict soon they'll be running seminars on your ass, putting you on the front of their mags, and eventually - of you're really lucky - end up attacking each other with epithets like "Nebtonite!" and "Nebtonian heretic!"

    Never fear though. We Thrasymachians got yer back. ;-)


    by quinn esq on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:46am

    Thanks for having my back.

    The thing is, like Deadman (and very like others here), I do like Rand. In fact, I even enjoyed her novels (but I won't go so far as to saying they're classics or anything - as I've said before, my tastes are a wee bit philistine). I just don't think her philosophy is any better than Marx's. It has some good ideas, but it doesn't think things all of the way through.


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:32am

    I have a question:

    Is the modifier Canadian subjective or objective?

    And if I am not mistaken, would someone's objectiveness be a subjective view?


    by elliottness on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:31pm

    I'm amused by the right wing's newfound fondness for Rand. Ritually proclaiming oneself John Galt is their new unifying act of courage, like the slaves in Spartacus. The great thing is that the more conscientious among them will feel obliged to actually read her stuff. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.


    by acanuck on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 9:15pm

    now that's funny. i like rand. a lot of her philosophy makes sense to me, although i admittedly am not strong-willed enough nor probably smart enough to incorporate her ideas into my own life and have really not thought through the implications of implementing them in a societal or political setting. But if there's one thing I think we can all agree on, it's that Rand was an atrocious novelist.


    by Deadman on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 3:10am

    She was a crappy novelist and crappy philosopher, which has always left me to wonder why she is still popular at all.  I have a theory on this based on the anecdotal knowledge I have gained from contact with these people: She tells certain people what they desperately want to hear.

    You are smart!  You are strong!  You have these qualities in above average measure!  You are thoroughly justified in doing whatever you want because of this!

    I mean, what's not to like about that, right?  A fact that I do not consider to be coincidental is that all of the voracious adherents to Rand's philosophy that I've had the great fortune to know have been what I would describe as "assholes".  It's the perfect philosophy for ignoring the fact that your "outsider" status could possibly derive from the fact that you are, in fact, a jerk.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:47pm

    Well, for what it's worth, I've enjoyed the two novels of hers I've read, but I'm not known for my refined tastes, either.

    Also, I have a good friend who counts himself as a Libertarian and is definitely not an asshole. (Of course, I wouldn't call him a "voracious adherent to Rand's philosophy", either, as he will readily acknowledge its shortcomings.)

    This might not make me popular around here (but I think most people will look beyond it), but I think the Libertarian party makes as much sense as the Democratic party. Depending on your view point, you might consider that to be an insult to one party or the other, but I think they both make vastly more sense than the Republican party, and vastly less sense than I would like.


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:52pm

    There are plenty of Libertarians who aren't Randian, though these groups sometimes overlap.  I have pretty Libertarian views socially, but I deviate from their views when it comes to economics.  For one thing, I don't think Keynes was Karl Marx Jr.  I also don't think that a full-reserve banking system is reasonable.  Nor is the gold standard.  I also don't happen to think that the Austrian school of economics is without flaw, whereas most Libertarians seem to regard guys like Mises and Rothbard with a quasi-religious reverence.

    My social views also leave me at odds with the Dems on a number of counts.  I'm not against gun control, but I think that the FAWB was flawed and reflects a failure to understand the underlying issues.  I think the war on drugs is not only a total failure, but drives the very problems, like violence, that the anti-drug set claims to be against.  And I can't stand their tendencies to push for censorship.

    And there are some left Libertarians out there that part ways with the Randians on the issue of collectivism.  Specifically, Rand regards it as the scourge of the Earth.  I happen to think it's necessary and not mutually exclusive of individualism.

    Contemporary American Libertarians have little more in common with the Republicans than the do with the Democrats.  For the most, the disagreement with the Dems revolve around economics (namely that many Libertarians accept no subsitute for their economic heterodoxy).  With the GOP, the disagreements come with concern for social issues, though the GOP has been solidly monetarist for decades and this leads to economic disagreement as well.

    Then again, there are so many different views out there that can fall under the umbrella of Libertarian.  Individualism v. collectivism, statism v. anti-statism, economically orthodox v. heterodox.  Given this, and that I don't consider myself Libertarian, my comments shouldn't be read as a representation of anyone's views except my own.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:21pm

    "You are smart! You are strong! You have these qualities in above average measure! You are thoroughly justified in doing whatever you want because of this!"

    Good luck finding that in anything Rand ever wrote or said. Rather, ...

    you are thoroughly justified in doing whatever you want so long as you grant that right to all others, because you and they are both human beings.

    That is what Rand told us. In that she defines both our right to freedom and the mutual obligation inherent in the act of claiming and exercising that right, as well as the basis for defining it so, the fundamental nature of human beings.


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:28pm

    Obviously, my comment was not a quote from Rand.  It's a characterization of what I have observed that people I have known have seemed to hear in her words.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:42pm

    To be fair to Rand, what have you observed that people seem to hear in Jesus's words - especially those who claim most vociferously to be a follower of his? (I say this as an atheist who nevertheless respects his teachings.)


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:49pm

    Jesus never wrote The Virtue of Selfishness.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:51pm

    That's just what the church wants you to think. ;)


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:53pm

    For the record, there are four basic problems that I have with Rand's work itself, rather than observations I've made about her adherents:

    1. Objectivism isn't.  No one is capable of being completely objective.  I value reason as much as anyone, but I also recognize the limits of my own perspective and cognition.  Rand doesn't seem to see any such limitation, but rather seems to think, like the Austrian economists, that her ability to reason is flawless and that, as a result, all that needs to be done in order to have an epistemologically pefect view of the world is to adhere to a (supposedly) flawless set of axioms.  Good luck with that.
    2. Her romantic regard of man as hero.  Give me a break.  People are capable of a wide breadth of behaviors.  Humankind seems a lot less heroic when you really consider what we do in the world.  Every "evil" that we deal with is caused by ourselves.  "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    3. Her hatred of all things collective.  If the greatest thing in the world is the individual will, then what about people who will to act collectively?  What if it is not tyranny of other people but rather of our circumstances that demand us to act collectively?  Climate change is a perfect example, if for no other reason than it betrays the fatal flaw in the logic of fundamental individualism: We all have to live on one planet with finite resources.  Rand is perfectly willing to indulge in nonsense to this end.  She wrote: "The American system is founded on individualism."  Really?  Maybe she missed that part about "We the people..." or forgot to read her John Locke.
    4. The fact that she recycled a bunch of ideas that she didn't come up and packaged them as her own without really adding anything, except nonsense, to the mix.  YMMV.  None of her fundamentals represent anything original.

    A somewhat distant number five would be my distaste for her fictional works, but that's more of a matter of personal preference than anything else.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:19pm

    The only thing I can find to disagree with on is your #5. What can I say? I have simple tastes.


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:30pm

    Far be it from me to begrudge someone their tastes.  I know I have many that are far outside of mainstream appreciation.


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 2:35pm

    http://www.hereticalideas.com/2009/04/jesus-christ-a-heretical-appreciation/

    Ayn Rand

    In forming her philosophy of Objectivism, Ayn Rand disavowed all notions of the supernatural and religious. Still, even she had admiration for Jesus, as she wrote here in a letter to a fan in 1946.

    “Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.”

     


    by MichaelM (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:30pm

    I am now convinced Gengis is bored and/or developing additional personalities.


    by elliottness on Sat, 04/25/2009 - 1:29am

    The really terrible thing is that they're so goddamned slow when it comes to leaving society.  Get to it, Galties!


    by DF on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:42pm

    My favorite was the bumper sticker on the back of this Lexus.

    Who is John Galt?

    It seems that they do not appreciate that the people they revere were the ones that drove us into the state of collapse, not the collective they so fear.

    I personally loved her books (not for their writing quality) but I think most people do not understand the true conclusions of her arguments.

    For one there is no Me without Us to provide a measurement point for the distinction we so crave.

     


    by elliottness on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 1:27pm

    This is not the thread I would have expected to hit 60 comments, but there you go. I read the novels as a precocious teenager, and seem to recall the "sex" scenes as being weirdly unerotic but somehow pornographic. I also remember thinking, "Damn, I could write a novel."


    by acanuck on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 4:05pm

    I gotta credit MichaelM for playing the willing foil on this one. He did put up with a hefty dose of abuse, and without him, this thread would have petered out a couple days ago. Congrats to Nebton on a successful first blog. Blog again any time.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 4:19pm

    Thanks, and I, too, will credit MichaelM for being a good foil. Although I did sense a bit of anger in him, it was always subtle, and he never hit below the belt.


    by Nebton on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 4:21pm

    He did lose his objective coherency tho.

    I especially enjoy how, after every regular had a chance to beat up on him, we proceeded to talk about him as if he was not real/non-existant. I would bet he has not fully abandoned this site...

    at least I hope not as I was looking forward to writting an "Objectivism is Bunk" post over the weekend.

    Footnotes and all.


    by elliottness on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 5:56pm

    I can hear you Nebtonites plotting.

    by quinn esq on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 9:43pm

    Had to repost this - my friend Jay had it on Facebook - it's an anonymous quote and it's a classic.

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."


    by Deadman on Fri, 05/01/2009 - 10:39pm

    That's really too awesome to be anonymous.  Wish we had a source for it.


    by DF on Sat, 05/02/2009 - 12:13pm

    Yessssss!


    by Bluesplashy on Sat, 05/02/2009 - 6:03pm