In this Wall Street Journal article, Heather Wilhelm argues that Ayn Rand is bad for libertarianism because her personal obnoxiousness, emphasis on the “virtue of selfishness,” and celebration of a small entrepreneurial elite tends to alienate potential adherents. I too dislike some aspects of Rand’s personality and disagree with many parts of her philosophy. Nonetheless, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Rand has done more to popularize libertarian ideas than any other writer of the last century or so — a point I emphasized in my own recent critical assessment of Rand . Literally millions of people have been influenced by her, including the vast majority of the last two generations of libertarian scholars, activists, and intellectuals, many of whom first became libertarian in the first place after reading her books. No other modern libertarian writer has won over so many people, and only a handful of nonlibertarian ones have equalled Rand’s achievements in popularizing an ideology. I am unusual in having come to libertarianism without any significant Randian influence, and despite a mostly neutral to negative reaction to her work. Even if Rand’s negative qualities have alienated a million potential adherents from the free market cause, she has attracted many more.
Brian Doherty and Katherine Mangu-Ward have already picked apart Wilhelm’s piece, and I agree with most of their points. I would add that Wilhelm is somewhat unfair to Rand in this passage:
Rand held some insight on the nature of markets and has sold scads of books, but when it comes to shaping today’s mainstream assumptions, she is a terrible marketer: elitist, cold and laser-focused on the supermen and superwomen of the world.
How are free markets best “sold”? A more compelling approach flips Rand’s philosophy on its head, explaining how everyone, especially society’s neediest, benefits from economic liberty. It’s a compelling story about how freedom and prosperity can change lives for the better. And Ayn Rand is of little help in telling it.
As a result of the recent resurgence of interest in Rand, I have been rereading her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged — a work that I gave up trying to finish the last time I tried reading it many years ago. One of the main themes of the story is precisely the way in which ordinary people, including the “neediest,” suffer when free markets and entrepreneurship are replaced by government planning and interest group lobbying. Railroads, factories, mines, and other key industries malfunction and collapse as a result (even before Rand’s entrepreneurial heroes go “on strike” in order to counter the movement toward socialism). Rand even has one of her “superman” heroes (Francisco D’Anconia) deliver a speech explaining in somewhat tedious detail why voluntary market exchange benefits the public more than government control. Economist Bryan Caplan has an excellent article explaining how Atlas Shrugged vividly (and often realistically) portrays the dangers that government control of the economy creates for the general public.
It is true, of course, that this theme is a less prominent element of Atlas than Rand’s valorization of elite entrepreneurial “supermen and superwomen.” Had I written the book, I would have concentrated a lot more on the former and a lot less on the latter. I would have done many other things differently, too. Then again, if I had written the book it probably wouldn’t have attained even a fraction of its vast popularity.
Rereading Atlas Shrugged today, I come away with a more favorable impression of Rand than before. Rand’s positive heroes still seem unrealistic and sometimes unappealing. On the other hand, I find her villains and her portrayal of government generally compelling. I still think that her philosophy and her literary style have many shortcomings. Today’s free market advocates shouldn’t ignore Rand’s weaknesses, nor should they accept all of her ideas. They certainly shouldn’t imitate her authoritarian leadership style and her intolerance for opposing views. But it would be wrong to deny that her influence has been a huge net benefit for the movement.
Robert Bloomfield says:
Someone no one remembers may have made a boring speech about how the little people benefit from giving freedom to the great, and no doubt they made some reasonable points. But the meme that made it into the popular domain is ‘going Galt.’
Thanks to Rand, the primary message of libertarianism is that great people somehow provide society with great benefits without any other parties to their transactions. They don’t need workers to implement their great ideas, or customers to demand them, other mediocre people to chip in with minor but essential insights. They don’t need governments to protect their property rights, help society band together to build roads and even function markets. Its their bat and their ball, and if you don’t stop teasing them they are going to take them and go home.
I think far less of libertarians now than I did before so many of them embraced this adolescent and simplistic view as part of their opposition to Democratic policies over the last year. Robert Bloomfield(Quote)
Shag from Brookline says:
This may be off topic, but I’m curious as to the reactions of constitutional scholars who lean libertarian to Tara Smith’s Constitutional Commentary article (Vol. 26, No. 1, Fall, 2009) titled “Originalism’s Misplaced Fidelity: ‘Original’ Meaning Is Not Objective” in which Prof. Smith employs Ayn Rand in taking both Keith Whittington and Randy Barnett to task with their versions of originalism. Prof. Smith’s earlier 2007 article “Why Originalism Won’t Die–Common Mistakes In Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation” in which she takes Justice Scalia to task on his version of originalism, also uses Ayn Rand but less so. Shag from Brookline(Quote)
Jeff Walden says:
I don’t know how to reconcile what you claim with Rand’s plain words, from the-speech-that-lasted-way-longer-than-it-should-have-good-grief-is-this-ever-going-to-end:
I struggled a long time to get through that speech, and I was glad when it ended. It’s been six or seven years since I read the book, but the above passage, of the entire book, was probably the part that stuck most strongly with me. Happily I was able to find it again in my copy without too much trouble; it’s page 973 of the paperback Signet 35th anniversary edition, for anyone else who feels like looking up context and has the same copy I do. Jeff Walden(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Ayn Rand Bad for Libertarianism? -- Topsy.com says:
Arkady says:
I dunno. I came away from Atlas Shrugged thinking it was the world’s longest Batman comic book, without the pictures. Arkady(Quote)
Bob_R says:
Absolutely agree. Rand’s negative vision is her great strength. Her description of the collusion between government and rent seeking business is spot on. She knew the details of how an industrial society can fall apart. There is no mystery why the book has risen in popularity during the Obama administration. Her positive vision is mostly a silly schoolgirl fantasy. Bob_R(Quote)
MnZ says:
I wasn’t a huge fan of Ayn Rand myself. I always thought her portrayals of populists and statists was unrealistic. I thought that no one could have such a mixture of idiocy, opportunism, and cynicism and still have any following within a democracy. I also thought her portrayals of many special interest groups such as unions was naive too. I thought it was unfair to view them as parasites, looters, and moochers — surely they understood their role within a sustainable economy.
The last year and a half has taught me how naive I was. It is amazing how quickly so many of these people demonstrated themselves to be charactures of Ayn Rand’s characters. MnZ(Quote)
mattski says:
If you’re given to fetishizing your heroes, and if the vast majority of humanity turns your stomach then Rand is for you. mattski(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Until mattski posted, I had not noticed the similarities between Rand and Hemingway before. Sarcastro(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
Atlas Shrugged is a peculiar book that, as IS suggests, more convincingly describes the ills of a government-controlled economy than the benefits of a market-driven one.
Rand posits ambitious business in conflict with ambitious government, when the reality is that, given corruptible officials and wide-ranging government powers, the correct market-based decision is to buy — or at least rent — a politician and capture the market by force. The real John Galt will live in New York, weekend in the Hamptons, schmooze in DC and frequently lecture on the dangers to the public from cut-throat competition in his own industry, even as he insists on it as far as his suppliers are concerned.
The real problem with libertarian economics is that it supposes the market imposes virtue as an economic necessity: it doesn’t, and libertarianism needs to say where economic virtue will come from and what that virtue will be like before most people, being less impressed with businessmen than Rand was, will buy into it. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
Mark N. says:
The main thing I find intriguing about Rand, which stands in significant distinction from a lot of libertarian philosophy, is that she doesn’t seem to think the pursuit of profit is actually a good in itself. Particularly in The Fountainhead, her heroes are pursuing visions greater than mere monetary profit, and the businessmen who just want to make money and have no other goal are the villains. For her, at least her Fountainhead self, markets and money are merely means rather than ends interesting in themselves, and the end is always a great man pursuing a vision. All in all rather more Nietzschean than pro-business. Mark N.(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
If this discussion involves libertarianism and libertarians (instead of conservatives who label themselves libertarians because they hate unions and government but disregard the essential dope-smoking, gay-embracing, abortion-tolerating, religion-rejecting, whore-championing nature of anyone who merits that label), when do we get to the first mention of anything other than conservative economics?
Without enthusiasm for legalization of recreational drugs, same-sex marriage, and prostitution (and for restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-God form), a self-described libertarian invariably turns out to be a conservative in drag. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
PersonFromPorlock–
...when the reality is that, given corruptible officials and wide-ranging government powers, the correct market-based decision is to buy — or at least rent — a politician and capture the market by force. The real John Galt will live in New York, weekend in the Hamptons, schmooze in DC and frequently lecture on the dangers to the public from cut-throat competition in his own industry, even as he insists on it as far as his suppliers are concerned.
No, you’re describing statist businessmen. People who employ government regulation to prevent or reduce competition.
The real problem with libertarian economics is that it supposes the market imposes virtue as an economic necessity: it doesn’t, and libertarianism needs to say where economic virtue will come from and what that virtue will be like before most people, being less impressed with businessmen than Rand was, will buy into it.
You misrepresent who libertarians esteem. They don’t have much esteem for people that use government regulation to prevent competition. A market does generally impose “virtue” (as you put it) when real competition exists. When that is shortcircuited by government manipulation it often doesn’t.
Disclaimer: Still haven’t read Rand, referring to libertarian economics in general. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Robert Bloomfield–
...Its their bat and their ball, and if you don’t stop teasing them they are going to take them and go home...
I think far less of libertarians now than I did before so many of them embraced this adolescent and simplistic view as part of their opposition to Democratic policies over the last year.
Seems like you’re just trying to infantalize people with libertarian beliefs.
It’s simple right and wrong. If you keep stealing from someone, or exploiting them, or ruining their hard work, or preventing their hard work from paying off, etc. — they aren’t going to put up with it. They’re going to move, reduce their labor(Why work hard when some people are just going to steal/ruin it?), etc. This is human nature. Works the same for the carpenter as the successful businessperson.(And that’s not mutually exclusive — I’ll bet the carpenter who built a big contracting business is looking at this nearly the exact same way.) It’s just that generally governments think “taxing the rich” will work, so they go after rich people. It doesn’t, see here.
In fact this dynamic is what helped build this country. A lot of the people that came here did so because they got tired of being ripped off, discriminated against, exploited, etc. and/or living under a system that punished hard work, innovation, and achievement. American Psikhushka(Quote)
FGH says:
For me, Rand is a popularizer of ideas rather than an original thinker, a teacher more than a creator. Rather than a general back in the tent strategizing the way to victory, she was more the foot soldier on the front lines throwing cherry bombs into the enemy camp just to drive them crazy. And she wasn’t beyond teasing the general, lest he go “wet,” as the British Tories describe those wandering apostates among their own ranks.
Another important aspect, made evident in the recent biographies about her, is an appreciation of the historical context in which she lived out her life—witness to the Bolsheviks as a child, to FDR’s New Deal as a young adult, to Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism during her middle years.
Intolerant and dogmatic, indeed, but no cherry bomb thrower hits their mark without manifesting plenty of attitude. FGH(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
From Wilhelm’s piece:
Rand obviously wasn’t very interested “shaping today’s mainstream assumptions.” Her concern was to challenge the mainstream, to call it vigorously into question, to seize the reader’s attention and focus it on a seriously different way of looking at things. She succeeded, and continues to succeed, with a great many readers. If people like Wilhelm prefer to pull and tug around the edges of mainstream opinion, moving it incrementally away from statism and toward liberty, that’s fine too. There’s room for both–and, indeed, far more room for relatively incremental approaches.
Rand did well to point out the corruption, mooching, and economic cluelessness that infests coercive government; that one person’s need does not constitute a claim on others’ property; that great increases in societal wealth don’t spring up out of nothing, aren’t created by politicians and government bureaucrats, but have their origins in the insights, risk-taking, and hard work of entrepreneurs. For me, her work was a bracing antidote to the casual collectivism of academia especially, a slap in the face. Granted, sufficiently strong antidotes themselves may be poisonous in large doses, and one slap goes a long way thank you. In particular, one thing I remember from Atlas Shrugged and could not stomach was the idea that there’s something wrong even with voluntary charity, that it’s unjust to give someone something that they did not earn.
Let Wilhelm (and others) focus on how economic liberty brings the general prosperity that benefits everyone, “especially society’s neediest.” But her smugly dismissive attitude toward Rand does not rise above what we may be sure would have been Rand’s dismissive attitude toward her. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Yeah. However, she was a popularizer of ideas that at the time got you labeled as a wretch and a hater (or whatever the current terms were) and she made socially more acceptable those ideas. Not a trivial feat.
As to that SPEECH, I internalized a very long time ago the fact that starting to read a book is not equivalent to signing a contract that I will read every word. I’ve read AS a few times and have always skipped over that speech. I felt that surely by then she’d made her point over and over. I suppose that the speech would be OK as a standalone exposition of her philosophy, if a person hadn’t read AS. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
PFP, as I recall, Atlas Shrugged did have such characters, the businessmen who looked to government for their success. Galt and her other heroic characters stand opposed to them. I think you can look at them as ideals, no matter how few and far between they may be today in an era where government’s tentacles reach into virtually every nook and cranny of the economy. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Arthur, do you really think all libertarians smoke dope? In my case, it has been a very long time indeed. Libertarians do, of course, deny that consenting adults should be persecuted for engaging in their choice of sexual relations–was that what you meant by “gay-embracing?” As for abortion, I recall some years ago that the issue was extensively debated in the Libertarian Party, with the result of removing the earlier pro-choice platform plank and not taking a particular stand on the issue. I don’t know what’s happened since then, but it is certainly not my impression that all libertarians favor unlimited abortion on demand. Nor are all libertarians atheists. As far as prostitution is concerned, see the part about consenting adults, and please give some thought to the possibility that opposing legal prohibition (with regard to prostitution or, say, drugs) is not the same as advocating that everyone or anyone partake. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Ariel says:
I’ve “read” the speech, on an audiobook. It’s probably the best way to do it. It goes on for over an hour. So if you put the “book” down for a little while, it’s ok.
Rand certainly believed in many of her extreme views. I don’t read her to understand the most extreme version. If you read her with a view of each character as an archetype, a Platonic ideal, it can be quite satisfying. She would probably throw the book at me for daring to suggest that, but I think it’s really the best way to do it. Many real-life characters do act like Rand archetypes, perhaps toned down to some degree or another. Ariel(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, exactly.
In fact, if I didn’t read it that way, it would be unreadable for me. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
LTEC says:
I agree with many of the negative and positive aspects of AS described above. And I characterize my own position as advocating a simple form of a “capitalist welfare state”, as summarized by my “Let Them Eat Cash” name.
But one remarkable thing about AS that is not often pointed out: In spite of the fact that it is a philosophical rant of questionable value with uninteresting and unrealistic characters that goes on for over 1000 pages of tiny print — and the “speech” is merely a sub-rant — it is extraordinarily readable! People have not merely bought it so that it could stay Hawking-like on their shelves; they have actually read it! Not only people who approve have read it, but many who say it is garbage have read it. Not just then, but today as well. Does anyone here know anyone who has read 1000 pages of Marx ... 100 pages ... 10 Pages? How much of Nietzsche has anyone voluntarily read? Is there any philosophical novelist who is at all comparable in this respect? (Maybe Sinclair Lewis?) LTEC(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
I will be more precise, Allan.
A libertarian detests drug warriors and gay-bashing, opposes forcing children to mouth homage to a particular fairy tale in the Pledge of Allegiance, would legalize prostitution tomorrow, finds supersittion-laced objections to morning-after pills offensive, thinks anti-pornography campaigns are an affront to decency and in general finds social conservatism at least as objectionable as communism.
It is common to encounter claims to libertarianism on this blog (and among conservatives elsewhere), but uncommon to encounter a libertarian. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Arthur: Actually, libertarians aren’t much fond of pledges of allegiance, either, but thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree with your final sentence. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Lester Hunt says:
I’ve taught and written on Rand’s works — even visited the archives in LA — for many years, and she hasn’t started to become boring yet. Her personal flaws and oddities, which are all obvious enough, are no worse than those of the other creative thinkers and writers I have studied. Lester Hunt(Quote)
Guest says:
I’m surprised that you’ve had so much to say about Rand without even giving Atlas Shrugged a complete read-through. Guest(Quote)
Mark N. says:
Orwell, maybe? Granted, 1984 is closer to 300 than 1000 pages, but it does seem quite widely read (and its ideas influential). Mark N.(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Animal Farm too. Sadly, short and readable as those books are, people quote them all the time without ever having read them. At least they get the gist. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Those are peculiar examples. Marx and Nietzsche were both highly regarded as prose stylists (Nietzsche in German). Marx, though English was his second language, wrote a number of memorable lines (“a spectre is haunting Europe today”; “from each according to his ability”; “the first time is tragedy, the second time is farce”).
If you really want to pick a dense writer, try Hegel. Mark Field(Quote)
Fred Ross says:
The lack of depth in Ayn Rand’s philosophy is in high evidence when she applies her libertarian theories to personal relationships. Of course man will always do the right thing when left unfettered by the shackles of the nanny state. In fact, he will even acknowledge when he has been bettered by a superior male and hand the love of his live over to the better man, just as he does in business and all other realms of life. The protagonist of Atlas shrugged went through a handful of men who gladly stepped aside when they realized they were not appropriately equipped.
That’s is the most shallow and fantastical way to look at man. What a load of hooey. And how sad for libertarianism that many people are brought to it through this medium. To me it shows the serious lack of intellectual curiosity of those who get sucked into her philosophy.
Just like any dogma, the sheer ease of a simple answer over shadows the deep complexity of the human condition. Fred Ross(Quote)
uberVU - social comments says:
juris imprudent says:
I certainly am tired of being associated with Rand. My libertarianism is rooted in classical, Enlightenment liberalism. None of Rand’s quasi-Nitzschean nonsense is required. juris imprudent(Quote)
leofromlansing says:
Ilya — will you be getting a big pendant shaped like a dollar sign to wear around, like Ms. Rubenstein did? leofromlansing(Quote)
juris imprudent says:
...a self-described libertarian invariably turns out to be a conservative in drag.
That of course is the OTHER typical complaint about libertarians. If you aren’t a Randite, you’re just an anti-union conservative. BTW, libertarians don’t object to unions — freedom of association and all. juris imprudent(Quote)
TP Fors says:
Rand knew full well that her exaggerated characters were necessary to pull the reader into her fantasy and slap her philosophy in the readers face. She knew the premise of the AS story was “hooey” with respect to real life people, but the concepts explained through her epic story compellingly shakes the readers entire belief system. Damn I love that about this book! TP Fors(Quote)
Javert says:
From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. Javert(Quote)
Duffy Pratt says:
I’ve read all three volumes of Capital and the Manifesto. That’s considerably over 1000 pages. And I’ve read almost everything published in English by Nietzsche. I haven’t been able to get through more than a handful of pages of Atlas Shrugged, though it did sort of enjoy The Fountainhead, when I was thirteen, which I think is about the right age for someone to read it.
If you are looking for other philosophical novelists, how about Dostoyevski? Thomas Mann? Melville? Don DeLillo? George Eliot? Zola? Proust? Should I go on? Duffy Pratt(Quote)
Cornellian says:
Heather Wilhelm argues that Ayn Rand is bad for libertarianism because her personal obnoxiousness and emphasis on the “virtue of selfishness” and celebration of a small entrepreneurial elite tends to alienate potential adherents.
Nonetheless, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Rand has done more to popularize libertarian ideas than any other writer of the last century or so
To me, the disturbing thought is “what if this is not a coincidence?” In other words, what if the logical outcome as one moves further and further along the spectrum of libertarian values is a cold, arrogant, callous and unfeeling personality? There are other famous libertarians with more appealing personalities — Milton Friedman seems like a perfectly decent fellow, but I don’t think one can dismiss out of hand the notion that there is a high correlation between those negative personality traits and strongly held libertarian values. Cornellian(Quote)
Cornellian says:
LTEC: [...] People have not merely bought it so that it could stay Hawking-like on their shelves; they have actually read it! Does anyone here know anyone who has read 1000 pages of Marx ... 100 pages ... 10 Pages? How much of Nietzsche has anyone voluntarily read? Is there any philosophical novelist who is at all comparable in this respect? (Maybe Sinclair Lewis?)
I’ve never read Marx or Atlas Shrugged. I have read Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, which has all the depth of a high school essay, and I’ve read far more Nietzsche than Rand.
As for philosophical novelists, I suppose that depends on what you consider philosophy. Henry James is highly philosophical but concerned pretty much exclusively with human relationships rather than economic systems. Cornellian(Quote)
mariner says:
PersonFromPorlock:
Thank you. Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of morals or ethics.
It’s even worse than that.
A simplistic reading of Atlas Shrugged (the kind I suspect most young people give it) suggests that the pursuit of wealth is the highest good — witness the worship at the “sign of the dollar”.
This is in stark contrast to the Christian view that “the love of money is the root of all evil”. mariner(Quote)
ricky says:
Glad someone showed up to let us know that we’re not real libertarians if we dare to make up our own minds about religion, sexuality, substance abuse, and infanticide. I never knew that liberty was so... commanding. ricky(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
In the real world, Galt gets tired of being run over by successful rent-seeking competitors and buys his own senator, because that’s the most efficient way to have his money make more money (and maybe the only way to stay in business). If corruptible politicians are available, pure market forces dictate rent-seeking by businessmen.
Rand never addresses the simple amorality of markets, and her failure to see that markets can preferentially reward corrupt practices is where her use of self-interest as a socially beneficial guideline breaks down.
I should mention that it’s been thirty years since I read Atlas Shrugged (cover-to-cover in two days!) so I may be misremembering some things. But I have absolutely no intention of reading it again. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
Any libertarian is free to make up his own mind . . . but if he tries to impose his preferences so that others are unable to pursue their preferences, he no longer is a libertarian, at least not as I understand the term. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Mark Field says:
While I agree with you (and PfP) up to a point, remember that Adam Smith did defend market economies as conducive to certain minimal ethical standards. For example, the need to deal repeatedly with the same people does encourage honesty and other factors which together constitute a good reputation.
Smith was careful to deny that market morality was sufficient as for truly moral behavior, and we may doubt if some of the conditions for his arguments remain true in today’s world, but he did at least make the argument. Mark Field(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Javert–
From each according to his ability; to each according to his need....
Leads to economic stagnation, declining living standards, poverty, and usually starvation. It also requires totalitarianism and usually a general cheapening of individual rights. Also tends to be horrible for the environment.
And after all that people still aren’t “equal” — which was the whole point to begin with. A tiny political and government elite that live in luxury forms, with the rest of the vast majority of the population in a standard of living below average for the world.
No thanks. You can hop a flight to one of the true communist countries any time you want. I’ll stay in this capitalist republic.(And work to make sure it improves.) American Psikhushka(Quote)
LTEC says:
Duffy Pratt: Thanks for the counter-example. I still don’t believe there are many. A related question: Do you know anyone who thinks Marx is garbage, a comic book without the pictures, who has read 1000 pages by him?
Regarding my request for another “philosophical novelist who is at all comparable in this respect”. This was badly phrased. I should have specified “another political novelist who is constantly hitting the reader over the head with his politics”. Orwell is an interesting suggestion, but I think he is much too readable in a traditional sense to fully qualify. LTEC(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Cornellian–
To me, the disturbing thought is “what if this is not a coincidence?” In other words, what if the logical outcome as one moves further and further along the spectrum of libertarian values is a cold, arrogant, callous and unfeeling personality?
I think you feel that way because you tend to fight things out with libertarians here a lot.
I won’t accuse you of it, but it’s a common liberal or leftist conceit that only they care about the poor, the working class, etc. That isn’t the case. Libertarian economics actually help the poor to a greater extent by making sure there are less of them — it increases employment, increases standards of living, increases societal wealth, etc. And with decreased tax loads and increased societal wealth there is more money available for private charity. And libertarians are not against private charity as long as donations of time and money are actually voluntarily and freely given.
Unfortunately, liberal economics — high tax rates, big government, etc. — tends to do the opposite. It hampers and stifles the private economy, often leading to the opposite of the benefits listed above — decreasing societal wealth and making everyone worse off. American Psikhushka(Quote)
Mark N. says:
Ah yeah, an interesting point, and I agree on Orwell, at least as regards 1984. Animal Farm hits the reader over the head a bit more, but it’s also quite short, so doesn’t require a reader to put up with 1000 pages of that sort of thing. The closest I can come up with is maybe Jack London’s The Iron Heel, which hits the reader over the head to the extent of having footnotes with quotes from various socialists, that make only the weakest effort to fit into the plot. However, it’s rather less commonly read today than it once was. Mark N.(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
mariner–
Thank you. Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of morals or ethics.
We’ve just been talking about the economic aspects of libertarianism.(Not a Randian or Objectivist and haven’t read Rand, just libertarianism in general.) There are plenty of moral and ethical principles in general libertarian philosophy: non-aggression, opposition to force/fraud, self-ownership, respect for civil and property rights, etc. A lot of principles that other belief systems tend to violate an awful lot...
This is in stark contrast to the Christian view that “the love of money is the root of all evil”.
And scripture could be cherry-picked for quotes supporting libertarian philosophy all day long: “The Lord helps those who help themselves”, “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not covet”, etc. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
PersonFromPorlock–
In the real world, Galt gets tired of being run over by successful rent-seeking competitors and buys his own senator, because that’s the most efficient way to have his money make more money (and maybe the only way to stay in business). If corruptible politicians are available, pure market forces dictate rent-seeking by businessmen.
Rand never addresses the simple amorality of markets, and her failure to see that markets can preferentially reward corrupt practices is where her use of self-interest as a socially beneficial guideline breaks down.
But those aren’t market failures. Those are government failures. If the government can’t meddle in the markets they can’t screw up and corrupt the competition mechanism. So what you’re referring to is a failure of liberal or big government economics, not libertarian or capitalist economics. American Psikhushka(Quote)
mariner says:
Mark Field:
Yes, but only in a market small enough that all participants can know the reputations of all other participants.
In the end, people deal honestly with each other because of their moral and ethical beliefs, and these are not part of an economic system. (Their presence may enhance and their absence may hinder an economic system, but are not part of it.) mariner(Quote)
g.e. Taylor says:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5404826610265339909# g.e. Taylor(Quote)
mariner says:
American Psikhushka:
You may have been. I thought we were discussing whether Rand was on balance good or bad for libertarianism. If you haven’t read Rand why are you even commenting?
I suggested that a too-shallow reading of AS gives readers a distorted view of libertarianism, because Rand strongly emphasizes the love of money, and promotes other principles less vigorously (IMO of course).
Precisely, and to the extent Rand emphasized those principles she is good for libertarianism. To the extent she allows them to be overshadowed by the pursuit of profit she is bad for libertarianism.
Several years ago in a discussion of business ethics (not here) a poster suggested (and several respected participants agreed) that anything not prohibited by law is acceptable business conduct. I believe that is monstrously wrong, and one example of an attitude encouraged by failing to understand that Rand’s “good” characters behave with honesty, respect for truth and respect for each other. mariner(Quote)
Javert says:
Boy, did I screw that up. I meant the reverse: From each according to his need; to each according to his ability. And the point was in reference to those who said that they got little if anything from Atlas in general, and Galt’s Speech, in particular. Javert(Quote)
Jeff Walden says:
Javert, you misunderstand. I never said I got little from it, I said that getting that information in the format of an eighty-page philosophical rant, one that delayed plot development and seeing exactly how the system would eventually crash, with no actual plot along the way, makes it less enjoyable to read. I like to read stories, and an eighty-page speech, regardless of its content, is going to make any story less pleasurable except to the true faithful. The speech was quite thought-provoking, and it did distil previously-gleaned philosophy down into a single (long) summary. However, I think there’s broad agreement that the same information communicated in a different format, spread into smaller pieces, is far easier to digest, would be far more entertaining, and would, all things considered, be better writing that would keep more readers captivated. Jeff Walden(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Agreed on both counts. Smith’s argument was not that a market economy subsumed ethics, but that a market economy would encourage/reinforce a limited subset of ethical behavior (which had to be derived elsewhere). Mark Field(Quote)
John A. Fleming says:
Several have commented on Rand being better at describing the consequences of the transition to full-on statism, than the benefits of a libertarian economy.
I’d say that it’s easier for everyone. What happens in a libertarian nation and economy is the future is emergent from the actions of everyone. No one is in control, so there is no unifying principle to extrapolate from. There is change, always coming from unexpected directions, that upsets existing businesses. Everyone has to adapt. The expectation is, new successful products and services arise through a winnowing process: most new products, services, technologies fail (yes even today), for various and sundry reasons (not all of which are rational), some succeed, and change the future. And no-one can say in advance which will succeed.
In a statist command economy, it always happens the same way. A group gains control of government in order to control the future (why, because they fear they will be the losers in a liberal economy). They take your money away, and use the power of government to pick winners and losers. But since their choices are inevitable inefficient, all they really do is transfer wealth from the productive to the unproductive. The wealth of the country evaporates, the productive become demoralized. Some people resist, selfishly preferring their own future, to the government chosen one, and so must be suppressed. Eventually, the government runs out of other people’s money. At that point a historical singularity occurs, where anything can happen, especially bloodshed.
The central problem is, the Blessings of Liberty are diffuse, best seen from a lifetime of effort, and come with attendant tragedy, as some people are ensnared by their vices, or have insufficient resources (money, friends) to overcome adversity. Whereas, if you can vote for your economic security by getting the law to pick your neighbor’s pocket, you believe you can keep the wolves at bay. We’re pretty close now, where a majority of voters believe they can vote themselves free money. John A. Fleming(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Thanks, American Psikhushka. ‘Nuff said. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Bonze Saunders says:
Well, it appears as if Rothbard is not exactly a reliable source... cf. Is Objectivism a Cult? (Part Two). Rothbard descended deep into the heart of crank-dom himself... “paleolibertarianism” ???
“Libertarianism” (or “Objectivism”) appeals to some sociopaths who find in it excuses for a naked display of unbridled egotism (e.g., the leaders of the “Ayn Rand Institute”, who should have the courtesy to label themselves “neObjectivists”). Sociopaths who prefer a more veiled approach to exploiting others exhale breathy rhetoric about their selfless concern for the needs of the masses. Sociopaths of the first type are easier to spot (if you’re naive).
My own experience with libertarians back in the day (the 70’s; I was chairman of the UT Austin Young Libertarian Alliance in 1977) is that libertarians are a diverse bunch, but none of them struck me as cold, callous, etc. Bonze Saunders(Quote)
LTEC says:
What most impressed me about the “objectivists” when I first met them back in the 60’s is that they considered everything, including all aesthetics, to be a moral issue: some architectures were morally correct, the others were morally wrong; some movies were morally correct, the others were morally wrong. I specifically remember that they were obsessed with the film “From Russia With Love” because it was so morally ????. I’ll leave it to the readers to figure out if the movie was morally right or wrong, and why. But I warn you, anyone who can’t properly figure it out is pretty evil. LTEC(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
mariner–
Yes, but only in a market small enough that all participants can know the reputations of all other participants.
There’s still the media, with product reviews, etc. made all the more relevant with the internet and search engines. And there’s still the law — if someone rips someone off they can be sued.
In the end, people deal honestly with each other because of their moral and ethical beliefs, and these are not part of an economic system. (Their presence may enhance and their absence may hinder an economic system, but are not part of it.)
There are non-moral reasons for ethical market behavior. Unethical participants could get sued, get bad reviews, etc. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
mariner–
You may have been. I thought we were discussing whether Rand was on balance good or bad for libertarianism. If you haven’t read Rand why are you even commenting?
The conversation has touched on libertarianism, or rather misconceptions and/or mischaracterizations of libertarianism, as well. And besides, I’ve read alot about her, been exposed to some of her quotes, comments, and philosophy, seen a film partly about her life, etc. And I certainly have an opinion on whether she is bad for libertarianism: the exposure is good, the misconceptions or misperceptions created are not. If you don’t think my comments are relevant feel free to ignore them.
I suggested that a too-shallow reading of AS gives readers a distorted view of libertarianism, because Rand strongly emphasizes the love of money, and promotes other principles less vigorously (IMO of course).
I think that’s probable.
Precisely, and to the extent Rand emphasized those principles she is good for libertarianism. To the extent she allows them to be overshadowed by the pursuit of profit she is bad for libertarianism.
Well the pursuit of profit isn’t bad. In a correctly functioning market it means you are providing value. If the pursuit causes one to use force, fraud, etc. then that would certainly be excessive. If one is not committing force, fraud, etc. it then becomes a question of whether the individual is living a rewarding, fulfilling, enjoyable, etc. life, and that is up to the individual to answer.
Several years ago in a discussion of business ethics (not here) a poster suggested (and several respected participants agreed) that anything not prohibited by law is acceptable business conduct. I believe that is monstrously wrong, and one example of an attitude encouraged by failing to understand that Rand’s “good” characters behave with honesty, respect for truth and respect for each other.
I agree. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Javert–
Boy, did I screw that up. I meant the reverse: From each according to his need; to each according to his ability.
Still sounds like some kind of ill-fated redistribution scheme like communism. Oddly, the ones doing the “redistributing” always seem to make sure they wind up with a lot. Sort of like Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others....”
I like the old “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours”. And anyone that wants theirs and yours, or wants to “redistribute” yours, is greedy, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Bonze Saunders–
Sociopaths who prefer a more veiled approach to exploiting others exhale breathy rhetoric about their selfless concern for the needs of the masses.
Are you claiming that anyone pointing out that libertarian economics results in higher employment, an increased standard of living, more societal wealth, etc. is a “sociopath”? That’s a pretty odd point of view. If I’m a true libertarian — don’t believe in force or fraud — how am I going to “exploit” you? By selling you a valuable product or service you actually want? If so, how is that exploitation? Am I “exploitive” just by existing, like a “bad influence” in some kind of vague sense? American Psikhushka(Quote)
Steph Houghton says:
Of course she didn’t do that. She did have opinions on what was and was not moral. Steph Houghton(Quote)
Steph Houghton says:
Do you think that might have been on purpose? Steph Houghton(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Agreed. Not so long ago, David Bernstein called Hayek a “conservative” and tried to defend that choice of words. Problem is, Hayek himself wrote an essay called “Why I Am Not a Conservative” and spent considerable effort separating what he called “liberalism” (which today would be called libertarianism) from both socialism and conservatism. Some quotes:
“At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as “conservative,” it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached.”
“So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.”
It is a cause of endless annoyance to me that many people here use “conservative,” “libertarian,” and “free-market” as synonyms. People who want to communicate clearly should not do this. Ricardo(Quote)
Randy says:
I was about 15 when I first read her novella Anthem. I thought it was way cool. Today, I think it’s second rate sci-fi. Still, the philosophy is commendable, even if it’s one of those things that anyone can read anything they want to in it.
1984 is another one of those types of books. When far left and far right people accuse the other of trying to implement a 1984-type government, it becomes rather meaningless.
But again, I would rather have these books than not, and they are still good reads, even if other writers are more subtle. Randy(Quote)
Largo says:
Steph Houghton,
I think ricky was responding to ArthurKirkland when he said “Glad someone showed up to let us know that we’re not real libertarians”, but I’m not sure.
His (Kirkland’s) description of a true libertarian sounds to me somewhat like the description of a true scotsman. Largo(Quote)
Bonze Saunders says:
No, not at all... that’s why I added the scare quotes around “Libertarianism” and “Objectivism”. I single out the folks at ARI (with an über-cute double entendre to boot) because a number of them are bloody-minded reifiers of the nation-state at heart... e.g., Yaron Brook: “If humiliation or torture is an effective method of extracting information that would save American lives, we should humiliate or torture prisoners as necessary”... from “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense, a truly horrific document, littered with “justifications” for state terror: “Most civilians of oppressive regimes do nothing to oppose or resist or change their governments. This passivity does not render them innocent; it renders them accomplices to the evils of their regimes.” Bonze Saunders(Quote)
uh_clem says:
Um....that’s not scripture, it’s a quote popularized by Ben Franklin who probably stole it from someone else.
see http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/sayings.cfm#helps uh_clem(Quote)
klp85 says:
Largo said,
I think that Kirkland’s point was simply that there are a lot of “libertarians” who are only libertarian on points where libertarianism and conservatism agree (economic regulation, [lack of] gun control, etc.), and that people who are only libertarian where libertarianism and conservatism agree are properly called conservative (or maybe something else, but certainly not libertarian).
I don’t know that he would say (I suppose that he can answer for himself) that a libertarian should necessarily believe that abortions, gay marriage, recreational drug use, etc., accord with their own ideas of the good life, or that a world in which such things take place is better than a world in which people voluntarily choose not to engage such activities, only that a libertarianism that permits government restrictions in these areas, while being adamantly against regulations in areas where conservatism and libertarianism ostensibly agree, is really just conservatism. A good number (if not most or nearly all) of the so-called “paleolibertarians” fit the above model, rejecting state regulations of the above activities (except maybe abortion), but nevertheless believing that an ideal world would be relatively culturally conservative.
Think of it in reverse: If a person were strongly in favor of ending the war on drugs, reducing government surveillance powers, expanding civil liberties, eliminating state discrimination against gays and lesbians, and reducing American interventionism abroad, but also supported laws creating $15/hr minimum wage, universal health care, and gun bans, would it be the no true Scotsman fallacy to say that this person is not a libertarian? klp85(Quote)
klp85 says:
uh_clem,
That reminds me of this Onion article. klp85(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
Actually, they’re not market failures, they’re how the market (successfully) responds to the opportunity presented by political corruption.
Markets, being amoral, allow players to have morals but don’t require them to. To my mind, this is vastly better than an economic system with built-in morality (like socialism), purely on liberty grounds, but it means that markets, by themselves, are no counter to “big government economics” when players untroubled by morality can make a profit from them. And of course, this is what we see: markets evolving naturally into crony capitalism.
My concern with Rand is that she has her heroic capitalists acting morally but seems to misattribute that morality to the marketplace. Without some external definition of moral behavior that downplays the importance of efficiently accumulating wealth (which is what markets are for), Randian self-interest lends itself to big government, not its opposite. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
juris imprudent says:
That would be because in his mind he had already laid the foundations defining social behaviour in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith actually believed that to be his true opus rather than Wealth. And trust me, if you thought the Wealth of Nations was a slog to read, TMS is just as bad if not worse. juris imprudent(Quote)
Mark Field says:
I’ve read them both. I think Smith writes fairly well, though I’m pretty tolerant on that score. But I agree that TMS is much harder to get through. Mark Field(Quote)
juris imprudent says:
I actually found Marx to be more enjoyable reading than Smith, even though the latter was obviously more correct. juris imprudent(Quote)
Sparky says:
I like Rand because I like my libertarianism with a dollop of hot B & D action. Sparky(Quote)
Mark Field says:
As I suggested above, Marx was quite a good writer when he wanted to be (he was a very successful journalist for years). Das Kapital is not well written, but then again, it’s totally wrong on the substance too. Mark Field(Quote)
Curious passerby says:
Okay, her people are shallow and the speeches too long. Can anyone suggest another author whose novels promote libertarianism but are more readable? Curious passerby(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Robert Heinlein. Mark Field(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
One other thing about Atlas Shrugged that has nothing to do with Rand’s philosophy: did it strike anyone else that the book was curiously dated when it was published? 1957 was when jet airliners were coming into use, but Rand’s characters go coast-to-coast by rail; and when they suddenly have to get somewhere faster, they get off the train, go to a local airport and hire a private plane owner to fly them there.
The whole book has a flavor of 1935 about it: the only thing in it that’s not 1935-ish are three references to color television. Curiously enough, Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here, which was published in 1935, also has three references to color TV. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
Duffy Pratt says:
Ken Kesey (Heinlein was also a good suggestion.) Duffy Pratt(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Yes. I had exactly that reaction. Mark Field(Quote)
Ricardo says:
If I had to guess, I think Rand romanticized heavy industry to some extent, which is really not a point in her favor. Railroads, steel, mining: these are the heroic, manly sectors of the economy.
Try to imagine Atlas Shrugged updated for 2009 with the hedge fund manager, the hospital director and Sam Walton. Doesn’t have nearly the same emotional appeal, does it? Ricardo(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
uh_clem–
Um....that’s not scripture, it’s a quote popularized by Ben Franklin who probably stole it from someone else.
Or was paraphrasing a particular passage. I stand corrected on that quote, but the point remains that I’m sure I could find a number of biblical quotes supporting libertarian principles.
And I’ll note that the site you linked stressed that the correct quote mentioned by another poster above is that the love of money is the “root of all evil”, not money itself. American Psikhushka(Quote)
Twirlip says:
Allan Walstad
It’s true that Rand did include descriptions of rent-seeking businessmen in her books. The problem for libertarianism, at least libertarianism based on Rand, is that she never offers any intellectual antidote to such people. Why shouldn’t they do as they please? Nothing in Rand’s “I will live my life for myself and nobody else” philosophy is any sort of prohibition to rent-seeking.
Rand wanted the benefits of bourgeois society while also wanting to dispense with what were once called the bourgeois virtues. There lies the danger for libertarianism. What if people read her and don’t come away merely with a “big government is bad” mindset but instead take her cultural critique to heart? What if they are more impressed by her Nietzsche than her Adam Smith? I get the distinct impression that many of her fans are so impressed. Twirlip(Quote)
Twirlip says:
I think her ideal was the creative sort of businessman, such as Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison. Men who invented things and then went on to found great companies on the basis of those inventions. Think “Rearden metal”. Rand’s formative years were the early part of the 20th century.
Her philosopy was very similar to that of Nietzsche, but where Nietzsche saw his creative supermen as being artists and poets, she saw hers as inventor-businessmen. As you say, it does not translate very easily to modern American business corporations run by a staff of Havrard MBA technocrats. I suspect she’d loathe such people. Twirlip(Quote)
Twirlip says:
I strongly advise you to not take anything which Jim Peron says with any degree of seriousness. At least do a little research on the man first. Twirlip(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
PersonFromPorlock–
Actually, they’re not market failures, they’re how the market (successfully) responds to the opportunity presented by political corruption.
From a libertarian perspective — free markets — it is the free market being corrupted, captured (regulatory capture), defrauded, etc. From that perspective its a government, not a market, failure.
Markets, being amoral, allow players to have morals but don’t require them to.
Markets aren’t necessarily amoral. As mentioned above, depending on the market fraud and other forms of misconduct are usually punished. Mechanisms can include lawsuits, bad reviews, etc.
To my mind, this is vastly better than an economic system with built-in morality (like socialism)...
Some might claim socialism is moral in theory but there are many strong arguments that it is not. In socialism the state or collective assumes itself to be the sole arbitor of what the individual “needs”. That means your property, and that means your labor (how much of the profits from your labor, and often where and what your labor is) as well. If an entity claims it owns your property and labor that is not far removed from slavery. Indeed in most socialist systems there doesn’t seem to be a concept of self-ownserhip.
From a realist perspective its quite easy to see that collective property and labor ownership are going to be a recipe for mismanagement. Those determining what everyone “needs” are human, so there is going to be bias, corruption, theft, nepotism, etc. That is far from moral.
...but it means that markets, by themselves, are no counter to “big government economics” when players untroubled by morality can make a profit from them. And of course, this is what we see: markets evolving naturally into crony capitalism.
From a libertarian perspective it is markets devolving, being corrupted, regulatory capture, etc. which are a government failure.
The counter for “big government economics” are free markets and small government. With a low tax rate government — less funding — governments can’t meddle in the markets. So reduce taxes. Reduce regulation, or at least transfer it to the private sector (civil lawsuits). Again, this doesn’t mean that markets will “immorally” take over the world, because fraud and other misconduct are still punished.
My concern with Rand is that she has her heroic capitalists acting morally but seems to misattribute that morality to the marketplace.
There are moral components to a free market system. When markets are truly free value creation is rewarded. Those creating the most value generally are rewarded. The results in more value creation and an increase in societal wealth — benefitting everyone to some extent. And also fraud, force, etc. are punished.
Without some external definition of moral behavior that downplays the importance of efficiently accumulating wealth (which is what markets are for)
That’s an odd characterization of markets. Markets are for exchange, which facilitates the division of labor. Otherwise the shoemaker would have to be a nearly fulltime farmer, and therefore a poor shoemaker. It’s true that markets facilitate the creation of wealth on both an individual and societal level, but to claim that that’s their “purpose” sounds a little strange. Civilization is built on markets, because without the division of labor we would all still be mainly farmers, hunter-gatherers, etc.
Randian self-interest lends itself to big government, not its opposite.
Actually big government lends itself to big government. We see this with even the Republicans not reducing its size, etc. Or cutting taxes but not cutting spending. To an extent its politics: for example Politicians don’t want to be seen cutting government jobs, even though the taxes to fund those jobs cost the economy an even larger number of private sector jobs that would have benefited the economy more. A lot of it hinges on widespread economic ignorance. The majority of the public doesn’t equate higher taxes with a weaker and stagnating or shrinking economy, when that is the result. American Psikhushka(Quote)
Largo says:
klp85,
We can talk about the certain stereotypical libertarian preferences “free drugs! free sex!” and see how they well it reflects the typical libertarian (or libertarian man, or libertarian midwesterner, or libertarian of the 70s vs the 90s, etc). We can talk about which features of the stereotype migyt strongly correlate with libertarian philosophy over time, and why. And we can certainly talk about poses people take, especially on the overlap between libertarianism and conservatism. All this is good for discussion.
ArthurKirlkand spoke in an earlier comment of pot smoking being a necessary condition (his word was “essential”) of being a libertarian. (Being merely against the prohibition of pot, or even against the social stigmatization of pot, is not sufficient, apparently. One must smoke it.) His efforts to be “more precise” in alater comment is a marginal better.
I said to Steph Houghton that ArthurKirkland’s description of a libertarian sounds like the description of a try scotsman, because his does.
Short first answer: yes that would be a (no true Scotsman) fallacy.
Second answer (short version): it depends. :)
Second answer (long version): it depends on the reasons for supporting the $15 minimum wage, etc., and on the reasons for ending the war on drugs, etc.(!)
Comment. unfortunately, many libertarians will resort to this fallacy! When they do, they sometimes may be able to make a case for it (that libertarianism really does exclude such and such), but often the case does need to be made.
Third answer (logically pedantic, without wishing to be a pedant). There is no such thing as a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. In particular, “to say that this person is not a libertarian” would not, and could not be a fallacious. The property of “being fallacious” can be enjoyed by arguements, not statements. And an argument with the premise that “only ... is a true Scotsman” can be perfectly valid (no fallacy) whether or not the premise is true (or reasonable). [Sorry, I know that it is an instance of an argumentative fallacy, along with “red herring”, “straw man”, etc. You may accuse me of the “no true fallacy” fallacy! It just brings up a bunch of issues I have in rhetoric, which I should not dwell on further here. Tell me if you are interested in why this is an issue!] Largo(Quote)
Bonze Saunders says:
All I can find that’s seriously negative are claims that he’s a “defender of pedophilia”, which is a matter of hot dispute. There’s a report from the “Locke Foundation” making the allegation which is not available from their website (?), and elsewhere a PDF of a NAMBLA (?) publication “Unbound” in which he contributed an article purportedly defending “boylove” (an ambiguous term, since it not necessarily involve sex acts)–which I of course won’t download, since it is said to contain child pornography.
The article by Peron I linked to on Objectivism re: cultism seemed pretty reasonable to me; “Objectivism” was/is dominated by a cliquish in-group, but there’s no more a “Cult of Ayn Rand” than there is a “Cult of Rodney Bingenheimer”. (By comparison, I read Albert Ellis’ “Are Capitalism, Libertarianism Religions?”, which is really a critique of Ayn Rand and “Objectivism”, and became convinced that the esteemed and influential Doctor Ellis is a grade-A nutjob.) Bonze Saunders(Quote)
markm says:
Terry Goodkind. His Sword of Truth series makes Atlas Shrugged look like a short story — but it’s all good storytelling. And it sneaks the libertarian lessons in, rather than bludgeoning the reader with an 80 page speech.
It’s not the same version of libertarianism as Rand’s, but more practical. Rather like Heinlein, only with a well thought out philosophy behind it. markm(Quote)
PersonFromPorlock says:
Just a note that’s WAY late to the party, but L. Neil Smith’s science fiction is libertarian, readable and not too silly. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
Jim says:
I humbly offer the following observations:
1) It is unfortunate that free marketers, classical liberals et. al apologize for the term “virtue of selfishness.” It is willfully stigmatized by socialists. Allowing that misrepresentation to stand, or implicitly giving it warrant, does great harm to free markets and the idea of self-actualization.
2) Many great writers and philosophers have clay feet. Why do Rand’s attract so much attention from people who stand on her side of the aisle? It is self-defeating.
3) Free marketers too often can not identify the philosophical enemy, preferring to quibble amongst themselves in fractured minorities as opposed to forming a moral and intellectually practical majority. This may be the tragic story of modern times. For ultimately, if we do not insist on institutions and markets that protect individuals, instead of the other way around, we have nothing. And we are headed that way. The left has won in almost every arena in society in the last 50 years while free marketers bicker or abdicate.
4) Free marketers’ propensity to become side-tracked or apologetic in response to socialist red herrings is so pervasive that I often wonder if many of them both do not realize what is at stake, or do not fully believe in the centrality of individuality in society in the first place. Jim(Quote)
Brian says:
In general, I believe the “he who governs least, governs best” mantra.
But I refuse to talk to libertarians until they can assure me that Rand has died at least one more time, just to be sure. Brian(Quote)
Largo says:
Brian,
As much as you may wish her to die at least one more time, I am afraid that this is beyond anyone’s power. (Except, perhaps, for exhumation and incantation?) ;-) Largo(Quote)
Kim says:
I wish all those that threaten to “go Galt” actually would. In my experience they’re generally noisy egocentric me-me-me types, who don’t actually contribute much if anything. They all think they’re John Galt or Howard Roark, but in reality they’re generally irrelevant.
This is what limits Randroids... they all have a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, which simply doesn’t work in a democracy. Kim(Quote)
Largo says:
Do you seek discussion, or are you trolling dead comment threads?
If you are serious. I would be happy to respond. There may be something to what you said, but the way you said it sounds faintly ridiculous. I am game to talk about it if you are. If not, drop a note here saying so, and I will know that you are real, and wish you well.
If there is no reply, then you are a dead comment thread troll, and I declare this here, lest people see your comment at the end of this thread, and mistakenly assume that you were actually taking part in the conversation.
I do hope the former. Seriously. I love to chat :) Largo(Quote)