Greenspan calls Rand a libertarian

[cliveandrews]

In his book, while dicussing his relationship with Ayn Rand, he writes that "today, she would be called a libertarian." Knowing full well Rand's views on libertarianism, I'm slightly horrified to see the he would commit such an egregious error and knowingly misrepresent someone whom he supposedly respects. Any guesses on why he would do that?

Edited June 9, 2009 by cliveandrews

[Steve D'Ippolito]

A lot of people *do* call her a libertarian. So he is right.

Doesn't mean they are right to do so, or even that Greenspan thinks they are right to do so (though for all I know, he does think so).

[Jake_Ellison]

Sounds stupid, on the surface, but I don't have the book. And now I'm intrigued. Is there any chance you could type in a couple of relevant paragraphs? (Pretty please?)

He could have some type of an interesting point (from his, Non-Objectivist point of view), now that he publicly renounced Rand.

[Space Patroller]

A lot of people *do* call her a libertarian. So he is right.

Doesn't mean they are right to do so, or even that Greenspan thinks they are right to do so (though for all I know, he does think so).

Libertarian covers a lot of ground and is not monolithic which is the one quarral I have with Peter Scwartz otherwise brilliant piece. Many Libertarians got their start with Rand and I have maintained for years that libertarian would be the proper name for her political views had that term not been misused.

Libertarian also refers to a general political outlook. Hence I am oftien referred to as a "small 'l' libertarian". I have never hread Miss Rand give a name to her political doctrine. She lists her ethical doctine as "egoism", her metaphysics as "objective", her epistemology as "reason" and her aesthetics as "Romantic Realism". the closes she has come to naming her political philosophy is "individual rights" or "based on individual rights", but taken together with her general mindset/worldview, libertarian would be almost exact and far more so than for those who have worn that label for the last 30 years. In his early radio career, Mark Williams referred to me as an "atheist libertarian" and my Objectivist identity was known but not understood so that was the closest they could come to it (Yes; I knew him in his early radio days when he was 28 and I was 35, if you have any contact with him ask him if the name "Laser" rings a bell), so there was once honor in that term. Before someone jumps down my throat, that was 30 years ago.

However, after 2+ months ago when he threw the free market under the bus. What Greenspan says, like what the Klingon says, is unimportant.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Grames]

Capitalism is the one word term for Ayn Rand's political philosophy. People do not understand capitalism but changing the name isn't going to help with that.

[Myself]

As an interesting aside, I read once that Rand originally considered calling her philosophy "libertarianism," but decided it sounded too much like a made up word and went with "Objectivism" instead.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Myself

[RationalBiker]

In his book, while dicussing his relationship with Ayn Rand, he writes that "today, she would be called a libertarian." Knowing full well Rand's views on libertarianism, I'm slightly horrified to see the he would commit such an egregious error and knowingly misrepresent someone whom he supposedly respects. Any guesses on why he would do that?

On a technical note, Greenspan saying "today, she would be called a libertarian" isn't exactly HIM calling her a libertarian. He may be recognizing that others may apply that label to her because they lack an understanding of Objectivism and why it differs from Libertarianism. I don't know the fuller context of his remark so I don't know for sure how he meant it.

Edited June 9, 2009 by RationalBiker

[FeatherFall]

As an interesting aside, I read once that Rand originally considered calling her philosophy "libertarianism,"

I hadn't heard that. I thought she was disappointed the word "existentialism" was already associated with bad philosophy, because otherwise she might've have used it.

Edited June 9, 2009 by FeatherFall

[Space Patroller]

As an interesting aside, I read once that Rand originally considered calling her philosophy "libertarianism," but decided it sounded too much like a made up word and went with "Objectivism" instead.

No matter what she did, she was going to run afoul of smoething.

Existentialism would make sense from "Existence exists". I've writtn on the nature of that.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html

But that was taken and misappriated, having little to do with existence and more to do with crybabyism.

Libertarian certainly fits the bill. From the 1963 World Book Dictionary comes the notion that it is based on the idea of free choice and freedom of action.

Objectivism is a pre-existing philosophical doctrine that holds that existence exists apart from and prior to, knowledge. But that applies to all Aristotlean schools of philosphy and is their defining characteristic. I looked that one up in a simplified philosophy textbook hoping to find some reference to Rand.

Randism would not be appropriate for her to do as it would be presumptuous. Marx did not call his ideology Marxism: He called it Communism. However, it would be all right for later generations to do since it would set it in the context of a member of the class of Aristotlean schools of thought and I suspect that that is how it will end up in a couple of intellectual generations. As of my sojourn at Providence College, it was not named in that Department. I was referred to first as a Randian then secondarily as an Objectivist. "Randian" did distinguish me from other Aristotleans in an Aristotlean environment. I adopted the term "Randite" from THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS (nice to know that Heinein thinks we'll be around in the twenty-second century: I'll take it!). Also, you would not believe the dishonest, half-breed and outright cockamamie things that were calling themselves Objectivism. I guess theift is the sincerest form of acquisition since nobody tries to steal a rhinestone tiara: Right? Beyond that, we're still at a point in history where we could shatter: We have yet to have our Council of Nicea.

For her part. Objectivism is the best choice since iit also carries with it things other than a view of metaphysics (a priori). It also carries a mindset and worldview. Also it served her specific purposes well. As a namme it serves to help move the philosophy through the world system.

Libertarian is one of those terms that covers a multitude of things and our political philosophy probably fits within the group of political systems that comprise that alliance. Just to show how confustigated it can get, there was a term making the rounds in the '73-7 timeframe: "Objectivist/Libertarian".

For myself, I look at it this way. "Rightist" puts you in the ballpark, "libertarian" puts you in the infield and Objectivist, Randist, Randian or Randite puts you on the pitcher's mound where I'm standing usually fighting with "neo-Objectivists" and some half-breeds but I'll take care of that. If I start being disagreeable i.e. "I'm not really a Rightist..." that chases you out of the ballpark as well as labels me as a bit prissy; read hard to deal with and a bit self-absorbed, on such matters. If thinking first of Rightist, then libertaian then Objectivist gets you there: It's called "successive approximation" and "narrowing of focus" or "zoom in". that's A-OK as long as you find me, since the map is for your use, not mine. I already know where I am. Also in getting you to me. I need to be both myself and an external observer.

It could have been really nasty, she could have tried "Existentialibertarianism" and maybe some 8 year old would have been given it to spell on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"

Edited June 9, 2009 by Space Patroller

[agrippa1]

As an interesting aside, I read once that Rand originally considered calling her philosophy "libertarianism," but decided it sounded too much like a made up word and went with "Objectivism" instead.

I'm almost certain I've read her stating that she wanted "libertarian," but it was already taken, so she settled on Objectivism.

(edit - misread)

Edited June 10, 2009 by agrippa1

[softwareNerd]

I'm almost certain I've read her stating that she wanted "libertarian," but it was already taken, so she settled on Objectivism.

I think you might be thinking of "existentialism". Edited June 10, 2009 by softwareNerd

[agrippa1]

In his book, while dicussing his relationship with Ayn Rand, he writes that "today, she would be called a libertarian." Knowing full well Rand's views on libertarianism, I'm slightly horrified to see the he would commit such an egregious error and knowingly misrepresent someone whom he supposedly respects. Any guesses on why he would do that?

I think Greenspan intentionally tried to distance himself from Rand in the book, in terms of his present philosophy. While his memoirs of his time with her are respectful and complimentary, he seems to dismiss Objectivism entirely with a single swipe at the voluntary taxation idea, one which even Rand admitted was not fully fleshed out. I found this, as well as the comment you quote, to be disingenuous.

Why would he do such a thing? Well, of course, it's because he's cast himself as Francisco D'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjold, by undermining the Federal Reserve and destroying the planned economy from the inside.

I think you might be thinking of "existentialism".

Do you remember where you read that?

[Space Patroller]

I think Greenspan intentionally tried to distance himself from Rand in the book, in terms of his present philosophy. While his memoirs of his time with her are respectful and complimentary, he seems to dismiss Objectivism entirely with a single swipe at the voluntary taxation idea, one which even Rand admitted was not fully fleshed out. I found this, as well as the comment you quote, to be disingenuous.

Why would he do such a thing?

In 1988 when the first infusion of federal money, read bailout, into the banking system to "save" the savings and loan system took place, Greenspan was in favor of it.

The root of that debacle had its origins in the 1970's when the feds, using the regulatory system in a way similar to the Community Reinvestment Act, required these thrifts to issue loans to the tune of less than 6% interest in a 9+% environment. Needless to tay the predictable started happening in 1979 and several of these institutions went under. With that scenario, it could be argued that the government had damaged the system and was morally obligated to fork over what it took to fix it and Greenspan could have argied from that point of view. However, that was not what he said. He gave the usual clpatrap about how we had to save the system etc...etc..etc. Aside from that, he was not in any way connected with the feds at that time. which means he had to go out of his way to give his imprimatur. to that. It didn't take a Hari Seldon to figure out that this would set the pattern for some larger event in the future. Fast forward 20 years....

Well at this time Dr. Petr Beckmann in an issue of ACCESS TO ENERGY said that Greenspan was "going native". That is having been in with the Washington clique, hse now was part of the Washington clique and supported what they did.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Space Patroller

[cliveandrews]

On a technical note, Greenspan saying "today, she would be called a libertarian" isn't exactly HIM calling her a libertarian. He may be recognizing that others may apply that label to her because they lack an understanding of Objectivism and why it differs from Libertarianism. I don't know the fuller context of his remark so I don't know for sure how he meant it.

I realize that. But given the intensity of Rand's desire not to be associated with libertarianism , it seems at least mildly sinister that Greenspan would even risk creating the appearance that the term is synonymous with Objectivism. Would any of you be inclined to write something like that?

Edited June 13, 2009 by cliveandrews

[cliveandrews]

Here's the passage:

"Rand wrote the story [Anthem] to illustrate a philosophy she had come to, one that emphasized reason, individualism, and enlightened self-interest. Later she named it objectivism; today she would be called a libertarian."

Edited June 13, 2009 by cliveandrews

[Sergio]

The name "libertarianism" has been destroyed from within through compromise, because too many people have associated themselves with it. In the beginning libertarianism meant:

"It is wrong to initiate the use of force against a person or his property for any reason. One may only use force in self defense or retribution."

Since then, it was associated with "small government", and from that point onwards, people with progressively bigger government ideas have been adopting the label. Lately, even generic "right wing conservatives" like Glenn Beck or pro-drug liberals like Bill Maher have been calling themselves libertarian. By diluting the term, it has lost its meaning.

I came up with the word Consentism, which seems to work: no person may be forced to do or give something without his consent.

[Space Patroller]

The name "libertarianism" has been destroyed from within through compromise, because too many people have associated themselves with it. In the beginning libertarianism meant:

"It is wrong to initiate the use of force against a person or his property for any reason. One may only use force in self defense or retribution."

Since then, it was associated with "small government", and from that point onwards, people with progressively bigger government ideas have been adopting the label. Lately, even generic "right wing conservatives" like Glenn Beck or pro-drug liberals like Bill Maher have been calling themselves libertarian. By diluting the term, it has lost its meaning.

I came up with the word Consentism, which seems to work: no person may be forced to do or give something without his consent.

I can add only three pre-1969 notes on the term.

1963 World Book Dictionary defined libertarian as a phkilosphical view that mean has free will.

1964 Poul Andersn's Star Fox, set in what appears to be the tweny scond or third century had a Libertarian Party

1966 Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, serialized in IF, used both Libertarian and Randite (to which I said "What the hell's a 'Randite'? Am I missing soemthing?" and took to mean some future political thinker. If you knew how many brushes I had with the matter of Rand from 1961 to 1968, mostly tangential, you'd think that my being here was predestined). The Libertarians of the 1970's used one of his creations from that story: TANSTAAFLE: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" The Libertarinas also used the image of the crumbling Galactic Empire from Asimov's Foundation to represent the fate of "big government" At which Asimov was very chagrinned.

Compared to the left of the past 15 years, the "right wing conservatives" ARE libertarian. You have to go about 3 levels in before you hit the spot where that breaks down (they aren't monolithic on drug laws). With the liberals, now an 85% subsidiary of the left, it's right under an increasingly thinmomh veneer. Megaton for megaton, most of Rand's ire was spent on the left, including two of her classic "psychohistorical" essays "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" and "The Comprachicos".

[gags]

Since then, it was associated with "small government", and from that point onwards, people with progressively bigger government ideas have been adopting the label. Lately, even generic "right wing conservatives" like Glenn Beck or pro-drug liberals like Bill Maher have been calling themselves libertarian. By diluting the term, it has lost its meaning.

I think you're ignoring the influential anarchist wing of the libertarian movement.

[Rearden_Steel]

I think you're ignoring the influential anarchist wing of the libertarian movement.

The anarchist hold no sway in the libertarian party. This is common misconception usually pinned on them by the left for their support of separation between state and economy. To quote Andrew Davis from the LP:

"At first our "Wall of Separation" commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It's just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse."

This confusion started in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists started using the term of Libertarian Communes.

I'm sure somewhere on the internet their is some nut who calls himself a libertarian and preaches the virtues of anarchy. However, these people have no place in the LP. Even most anarchist pages and groups will try and distance themselves from libertarians.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E. Woods, and Thomas Sowell are influential libertarians, none of whom are anarchist.

Sorry to get off topic but I wanted to quickly clarify this.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Rearden_Steel

[Space Patroller]

The anarchist hold no sway in the libertarian party. This is common misconception usually pinned on them by the left for their support of separation between state and economy. To quote Andrew Davis from the LP:

"At first our "Wall of Separation" commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It's just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse."

This confusion started in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists started using the term of Libertarian Communes.

I'm sure somewhere on the internet their is some nut who calls himself a libertarian and preaches the virtues of anarchy. However, these people have no place in the LP. Even most anarchist pages and groups will try and distance themselves from libertarians.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E. Woods, and Thomas Sowell are influential libertarians, none of whom are anarchist.

Sorry to get off topic but I wanted to quickly clarify this.

Nothing OT about it. "Libertarian" has been used to paint with such a bread brush that it entrains a gazillion concepts of identity whenever the word is mentioned and lunatics like Rothbard didn't help. How you could support the Iranian and Sandinista revolutions of '79, knowing the identities of each, with the mealy-mouthed "...libertarians cannot be responsible for the outcomes of such revolutions" and not be banned from libertarian publications for life Is a mystery on the order of the Mare Celeste. It gives strong evidence in support of Schwartz' essay (and he used that with deadly efficacy)/ To me, what you give your name to, you give your soul and reveal the contents of that soul and the worth of your name.

[SD26]

The anarchist hold no sway in the libertarian party. This is common misconception usually pinned on them by the left for their support of separation between state and economy. To quote Andrew Davis from the LP:

"At first our "Wall of Separation" commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It's just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse."

This confusion started in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists started using the term of Libertarian Communes.

I'm sure somewhere on the internet their is some nut who calls himself a libertarian and preaches the virtues of anarchy. However, these people have no place in the LP. Even most anarchist pages and groups will try and distance themselves from libertarians.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E. Woods, and Thomas Sowell are influential libertarians, none of whom are anarchist.

Sorry to get off topic but I wanted to quickly clarify this.

Thank you, that was valuable to me.

[gurugeorge]

I've long thought that libertarian-minded people and Objectivists should start calling US-style liberals "liberals" in all writing and (if it catches on) thereby reclaim the proper term.

After all, they are no longer liberals. We are the liberals.

"Libertarian", although correct, is indeed somewhat clumsy, and was in fact a Left-wing term a long time before libertarians claimed it.

[Space Patroller]

I've long thought that libertarian-minded people and Objectivists should start calling US-style liberals "liberals" in all writing and (if it catches on) thereby reclaim the proper term.

After all, they are no longer liberals. We are the liberals.

"Libertarian", although correct, is indeed somewhat clumsy, and was in fact a Left-wing term a long time before libertarians claimed it.

Even Mike Savage calls the US-style liberals "illiberal" and In the mid '80's I met seversl libertarians who called themselves "classical liberals". to set themselves apart from anarchists, liberals and conservatives.