Charlotte Corday Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 I find it curious that neither the Ayn Rand Institute’s bookstore nor the Objectivist Center’s “Objectivism Store,” both of which supposedly defend laissez-faire, offers a single book by Ludwig von Mises. That's unfortunate because just as Rand provided a powerful moral defense of capitalism, Mises showed that it is the only practical economic system. Rand and Mises were the twin beacons in the formation of my own political philosophy. I discovered the great Austrian economist through a conservative book service, which began sending me brochures after I (at the ripe age of 15) had contributed a whopping $10 to Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. I discovered the great ex-Russian novelist three years later by way of an article in Life magazine. Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, both residing in New York City, had met and (with some reservations) respected one another. Some of Rand’s inner circle of the 1950s attended Mises’s lectures at New York University. The Objectivist Newsletter, Rand’s first periodical, enthusiastically recommended Mises’s books Planned Chaos, The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, Planning for Freedom and Human Action. Mises himself attended some of the lectures on Objectivism given at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan by NBI, which was Objectivism’s earliest outreach organization. At one point Mises remarked that Ayn Rand was "the most courageous man in America." Other similarities: Both were born to Jewish parents, both fled to America to escape totalitarian regimes, both were uncompromising in their defense of capitalism. It's worth considering what common ground the 20th century’s two foremost and “extremist” defenders of laissez-faire share -- and where exactly they diverge philosophically. I would like to offer, as a springboard for discussion, the following links: http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Younkins/Ca...econciled.shtml http://www.freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetime...ues_virtues.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/reisman1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 I find it curious that neither the Ayn Rand Institute’s bookstore nor the Objectivist Center’s “Objectivism Store,” both of which supposedly defend laissez-faire, offers a single book by Ludwig von Mises. That's unfortunate because just as Rand provided a powerful moral defense of capitalism, Mises showed that it is the only practical economic system. I have an ARI brochure, which just arrived yesterday, which has 'Human Action' for sale in audio book format. I've bought books by Von Mises before from Second Renaissance books, as they were. TOC is a rubbish organisation so it won't have anything worth buying. As for Lew Rockwell, I don't waste my time with Christian anarchists who will jump through hoops to paint America as the bad guy. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1123 "Even so, perhaps it is worth examining the deeper historical and political issues. It is not true that supporting the Dixiecrats in 1948 necessarily reflected a racial bias against blacks. The real issue was not race; it was the place of freedom and federalism--concepts that are apparently not understood by the national press or by any of Lott's critics right and left--in the post-war period. Both parties were split on the direction they would take after long years of depression and war. The industrial planning of the New Deal was shocking enough, but the wartime planning of the Second World War was as bad as the fascist governments the US opposed on the battlefront. The crucial political question concerned the direction the country would take in the future--pushing headlong into the welfare-warfare state or returning to founding principles--just as the country faced this same question in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. In 1948, the key domestic question concerned the uses of federal power for purposes of social planning and redistribution. On the international front, the Marshall Plan had already been passed, shocking many in both parties who had a principled opposition to foreign aid and international management on this scale. And Truman and his advisers were already embroiling the US in a Cold War against Russia, a government that had been a close US ally only a few years earlier. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Oh, my God! http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1605 The A Priori of Ownership: Kant on Property By Marcus Verhaegh [Posted September 9, 2004] Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is a highly significant resource for classical liberalism and libertarianism. Not only can one rely upon Kant's account of the foundations of morality to derive libertarian principles: Kant's own specifically political philosophy is written very much in a classical liberal vein that opposed paternalist government while emphasizing the centrality of the individual's property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 I have an ARI brochure, which just arrived yesterday, which has 'Human Action' for sale in audio book format. I've bought books by Von Mises before from Second Renaissance books, as they were. TOC is a rubbish organisation so it won't have anything worth buying. As for Lew Rockwell, I don't waste my time with Christian anarchists who will jump through hoops to paint America as the bad guy. Well, at least www.mises.org has all of Mises's books for sale, and several online for free. Oh, my God! Kant's own specifically political philosophy is written very much in a classical liberal vein that opposed paternalist government while emphasizing the centrality of the individual's property rights. Yes, Kant, for all of his faults, was not a socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 It's worth considering what common ground the 20th century’s two foremost and “extremist” defenders of laissez-faire share -- and where exactly they diverge philosophically. I'm not an expert on Mises, although I've read a number of his books. But based on what I know and as a broad generalization I think you could safely say they mostly agree about economics - but, unfortunately (for Mises), mostly disagree about philosophy. I believe that philosophical difference is what led to them eventually parting ways, although AR continued to regard him highly enough to recommend many of his books (as she did Henry Hazlitt with whom I believe she may have had an even more violent personal split). Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 I'm not an expert on Mises, although I've read a number of his books. But based on what I know and as a broad generalization I think you could safely say they mostly agree about economics - but, unfortunately (for Mises), mostly disagree about philosophy. I believe that philosophical difference is what led to them eventually parting ways, although AR continued to regard him highly enough to recommend many of his books (as she did Henry Hazlitt with whom I believe she may have had an even more violent personal split). Fred Weiss I believe this to be an accurate summary. I read once that when someone in her circle proposed going after Mises for his value skepticism, Rand responded, "Oh, leave him alone. He's done enough." And she was right. After fleeing from the Nazis in Vienna, Mises fought a tough, one-man battle against the Keynesians and socialists who dominated his profession in the 40s and 50s. One example of what he was up against: major universities like Columbia wouldn't stock his books in their libraries, but they would carry monographs devoted to "refuting" his ideas. I for one am fascinated by the fact that Rand and Mises differed so radically on basic philosophical premises, yet arrived at practically the same conclusions on political economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 I for one am fascinated by the fact that Rand and Mises differed so radically on basic philosophical premises, yet arrived at practically the same conclusions on political economy. Laissez-faire economics and the idea of limited gov't of course preceded Ayn Rand and there were many thinkers who upheld it before her. The problem is that no thinker before her provided it with a strong enough philosophical base to withstand the moral antagonism against it. It cannot be properly and effectively defended on the grounds of subjectivism (Mises) and certainly cannot be made consistent with altruism (Christian conservatism). Speaking for myself, as a former communist, I know that no amount of economic argument ever could have convinced me. It required an Ayn Rand to get me to take a fresh look at the argument for capitalism. Then, at that point, I found Mises (and others) very helpful. You know, today, leftists almost concede that the economic argument for capitalism is irrefutable. Ironically, they consider that an argument against it I made this point a number of times to David Friedman who always kept insisting that the economic argument was carrying the day but I think even he finally conceded that I was right (I think as a result of arguing with some environmentalists). Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 Laissez-faire economics and the idea of limited gov't of course preceded Ayn Rand and there were many thinkers who upheld it before her. The problem is that no thinker before her provided it with a strong enough philosophical base to withstand the moral antagonism against it. It cannot be properly and effectively defended on the grounds of subjectivism (Mises) and certainly cannot be made consistent with altruism (Christian conservatism). Right; this is one of the reasons why libertarianism is pointless and even detrimental to promoting liberty. Perhaps the reason Mises's works are not stocked by ARI etc. is that economics is really a side issue for Objectivism; the case for capitalism must be made on moral grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 Perhaps the reason Mises's works are not stocked by ARI etc. is that economics is really a side issue for Objectivism; the case for capitalism must be made on moral grounds. I'm sure that's not the reason. Economics is not a "side issue" for Objectivism, although you are correct that it is not the primary issue. But I don't know what the reason is. I haven't done an inventory of ARB listings with the idea in mind of questioning them. I'm just pleased that they carry a fair number of my books Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 By "side issue" I mean "not a main issue." It seems to me that an Objectivist can defend capitalism without knowing or using any economics whatsoever. It is sometimes helpful to be able to counter incorrect economic arguments against capitalism, but that is not central. I read once that when someone in her circle proposed going after Mises for his value skepticism, Rand responded, "Oh, leave him alone. He's done enough." I find this rather interesting in view of the virulent attacks some Objectivists now make on anyone who deviates from Objectivist orthodoxy even slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 I find this rather interesting in view of the virulent attacks some Objectivists now make on anyone who deviates from Objectivist orthodoxy even slightly. Non-Objectivist economists, scientists, etc. should be supported to the extent that they consistently agree with Objectivism. Miss Rand might have considered Ludwig von Mises to be worthy of such support. Conversely, intellectuals should be condemned and actively shunned to the extent that they are harmful to rational ideas and nobody does this more than the intellectual vermin who claim to uphold Objectivism while simultaneously "deviating from Objectivist orthodoxy." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 Right; I guess I am thinking mostly of libertarians and others whose views are similar to Mises's. What makes you so sure that those "vermin" are really so awful and do not just have an honest disagreement on some point (or might even be correct)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 I find this rather interesting in view of the virulent attacks some Objectivists now make on anyone who deviates from Objectivist orthodoxy even slightly. Ayn Rand, as far as I know, was much more benevolent and open-minded than the socialists and catholics of that time. For example, she considered St. Thomas Aquinas as an intellectual giant as she mentions in Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal because he brought Aristotelian epistemology in the western world while socialists and catholics damned her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfortun Posted September 10, 2004 Report Share Posted September 10, 2004 Ms. Rand makes some interesting (though short) comments on Mises' Human Action and Bureaucracy in the book Ayn Rand's Marginalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 By "side issue" I mean "not a main issue." It seems to me that an Objectivist can defend capitalism without knowing or using any economics whatsoever. It is sometimes helpful to be able to counter incorrect economic arguments against capitalism, but that is not central. Again, the proper concept here is primary, i.e. that the primary defense of capitalism should be moral. However that it is the primary issue does not minimize the importance of other aspects of it. Capitalism is, afterall, an economic system and to attempt to defend it solely on moral grounds renders it something of a "floating abstraction". It is important in my view to grasp the economic issues as well. I find this rather interesting in view of the virulent attacks some Objectivists now make on anyone who deviates from Objectivist orthodoxy even slightly. I don't know who this is supposed to be addressed to or to what it refers, but stated as such in this out-of-context way, I consider it a smear and highly insulting. And, I might add, therefore particularly offensive and inappropriate on this Forum. For one thing, I don't recognize the legitimacy of a notion like "Objectivist orthodoxy". There is: Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It was her philosophy. There aren't variations of it. Anyone is free to disagree with some aspect of it, but they are not, if they are honest, free to then call it Objectivism. Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 I got all my Mises books when they were Second Renaissance Books. They streamlined the product list when they became the Ayn Rand Bookstore, there are dozens of titles that are no longer offered. Nothing curious about it. Although I did like it when they offered the wider selection of stuff, it helped me to reach books that may have passed me by unnoticed. Although, The Paper Tiger has taken care of a number of discoveries for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiervexx Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 Laissez-faire economics and the idea of limited gov't of course preceded Ayn Rand and there were many thinkers who upheld it before her. The problem is that no thinker before her provided it with a strong enough philosophical base to withstand the moral antagonism against it. It cannot be properly and effectively defended on the grounds of subjectivism (Mises) and certainly cannot be made consistent with altruism (Christian conservatism). Mises and Rothbard where big believers in reason, they just believed that certain things had to remain subjective, and I agree with them, although I may be closer to Rand than they where. Speaking for myself, as a former communist, I know that no amount of economic argument ever could have convinced me. It required an Ayn Rand to get me to take a fresh look at the argument for capitalism. Then, at that point, I found Mises (and others) very helpful. You know, today, leftists almost concede that the economic argument for capitalism is irrefutable. Ironically, they consider that an argument against it I made this point a number of times to David Friedman who always kept insisting that the economic argument was carrying the day but I think even he finally conceded that I was right (I think as a result of arguing with some environmentalists). Fred Weiss I have actully had more success using economic arguments than emotional or moral aproaches. This is not always the case, but many people will feel like they are bing attacked if you tell them about how immoral and disgusting their big-government views are. I think that when dealing with many socialists it is better to first make them question how their views work, then ease in a little bit of the moral justification (after all, nobody can come up with a clear justification for taxation, it can't be done). I am a very big fan of David Friedman BTW. How did you meet him and did you adopt any of his views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 I am a very big fan of David Friedman BTW. How did you meet him and did you adopt any of his views? David Friedman is an extreme philosophical sceptic, a total subjectivist in ethics, and a political anarchist. I think that should answer your question. I've never met him in person. He and I debated often over a period of many years on another forum. Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 I don't know who this is supposed to be addressed to or to what it refers, but stated as such in this out-of-context way, I consider it a smear and highly insulting. And, I might add, therefore particularly offensive and inappropriate on this Forum. For one thing, I don't recognize the legitimacy of a notion like "Objectivist orthodoxy". There is: Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It was her philosophy. There aren't variations of it. Anyone is free to disagree with some aspect of it, but they are not, if they are honest, free to then call it Objectivism. I think that Godless Capitalist was probably referring to some who are overly judgmental, but I too bristle whenever I see reference to a phrase such as "Objectivist orthodoxy." I do not think it was the case here, but such terminology is most often used by those who want to appropiate some parts of Objectivism to use with their own contradictory views, and still call it Objectivism or claim consistency with it. Fred is quite right in his passioned objection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted September 11, 2004 Report Share Posted September 11, 2004 Godless Capitalist, please explain which Objectivists you had in mind when you wrote about "virulent attacks some Objectivists now make" and why you chose to use the pejorative term "Objectivist orthodoxy." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.