Rand Attacked, Then Defended, In Fraser Forum

[Little Big Man]

The Fraser Institute is an economic think tank in Canada. In the September 2005 issue of its monthly magazine, Fraser Forum, it published a letter by Jack Boulogne encouraging economists to read moral philosophy, but discouraging them from reading Rand, on the ground that she defended selfishness as a virtue.

In the February 2006 issue of Fraser Forum, the Fraser Institute published a reply to Boulogne's letter. In it, Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever defends, Rand and Objectivism.

See both letters, below.

Source:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=pb&id=821

Letter to the Editor

Mr. Jack Boulogne (Letter to the Editor, Fraser Forum, September 2005) recommends that economists learn to defend “market” or “laissez faire” economics on moral grounds, but that they not “bother reading Ayn Rand.” I cannot think of more harmful advice.

To begin with, economic research has not demonstrated the superiority of “the market” or “laissez faire,” per se. Even trade in a communist economy occurs in “the market.” A perfectly “laissez faire” system (i.e., one in which government played no role at all) would actually be an anarchistic one governed not by market forces but by brute forces. Let us be precise. The success of economics has actually been to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism: a system in which government defends each person’s exclusive control over the use of his own land, chattels, money, inventions, etc. (i.e., in which government defends property rights), and in which one can trade the use of one’s property for other property or for labour.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, provided the first and only rational and logical moral defence of capitalism in human history. Objectivism is every capitalist economist’s greatest ally and most powerful intellectual weapon. Accordingly, Ayn Rand is the anti-capitalist’s most hated foe; the spread of her philosophy is his greatest fear; and the defamation of Rand, of her philosophy, and of those who espouse her philosophy, is his most pressing task.

In a nutshell, Rand’s philosophy defends capitalism as follows:

Metaphysics: The universe actually exists. It is not a product of your mind. Its qualities are not affected by what you merely think about them.

Epistemology: Unlike all other organisms, your sole means of knowing anything is by logical reasoning. Man cannot survive and thrive if no man chooses to think.

Ethics: Your own life is your highest moral value: your death is of no value to you. The pursuit of your own happiness is your highest moral purpose: the pursuit of self-sacrifice and suffering is anti-life. In your pursuit of happiness, rationality (which implies productivity) is your highest virtue: it would be vicious for you pursue your own happiness by forcing others to sacrifice.

Politics: Denied your physical liberty, you cannot survive by acting upon your thoughts. Denied the fruits of your productive activities, you will suffer or perish. Therefore, it is morally right to use physical force to defend your life, your liberty and your property.

Capitalism: Capitalism recognizes and defends reason as man’s sole means of survival. In a capitalist society, goods and services are distributed by consensual trade, not by physical coercion. Being a system in which coercive physical force is used only to defend each person’s life, liberty and property, capitalism is the only system compatible with human life.

If you want to understand the nature of anti-capitalist philosophies, take Mr. Boulogne’s advice and read any other philosophical works you can. But, if you want to know why capitalism is morally righteous, read Rand.

Sincerely,

Paul McKeever, BSc (Hons), MA, LLB

Employment Lawyer and Leader of

the Freedom Party of Ontario

=======================================

Source:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/...s/Sept05ff.pdf#

Letter to the Editor

Morality & Economics

While the central problem of economics, here defined as the science of finding optimum methods to create goods and services, is essentially solved, a problem remains. Economists now generally recognize that “the market” is the path to prosperity and quality of life. Thankfully, the Marxist “economist” is an almost extinct species, but the stubborn problem that remains is how to persuade politicians and the general public that laissez-faire, grudgingly accepted as good for business and creating wealth, is also good for human life in general.

Pope John Paul II made a most remarkable statement a short time before he died. He said, and I paraphrase, “People are too concerned with making money and this is wrong. We should concern ourselves instead with the task of eliminating poverty.”

Since I am a philosopher and routinely examine statements for logical soundness, my mouth hung open with astonishment. How could such a wise and respected man say something so absurd? I expected to hear a roar of laughter right around the world. Instead nothing. No response. No editorial comment.

Here then we see the unsolved problem in a nutshell. People with some education are quite willing to accept “the market” as good for creating jobs and prosperity but a failure in moral terms. They see some fundamental clash between the morally good life and the materially good life. The Fraser Institute is devoted to the idea that freedom in economic matters, which is materially so productive, is also morally superior, but the task of communicating the idea is dauntingly difficult. Some economists have made things worse by talking about “value-free economics” which could be understood to mean that economists are people who care nothing about values, which include the so-called moral values. Moral values are things that have to do with matters of distributive justice, the moral repugnance we feel when we see the very rich living in proximity with the dismally poor, and the emptiness of being very rich and discovering that “there is more to life than mere wealth.”

To make a very long story very short, I recommend that economists take the formal study of moral philosophy more seriously, and not bother reading Ayn Rand, the very smart (once famous) author of Atlas Shrugged. After all, she spoke of the “virtue of selfishness,” and that is precisely the message that economists do not want to convey because it is precisely why the public is suspicious of laissez-faire economics. Selfishness is not a moral virtue, even though it is also true that unselfish people cause most of the world’s problems. To explain this enigmatic statement takes a great deal more time and space than is available here.

—Jack Boulogne

Jack Boulogne ([email protected]) is a retired physics teacher and a full time writer of books on moral reasoning. He has an MA in philosophy from the University of British Columbia. He has written a number of articles on philosophy for the Canadian Children’s Magazine and taught a high school ethics course for a number of years.

=========================

Note from Little Big Man (i.e., not solicited by the Fraser Institute): Those who support the Fraser Insitute with a contribution of $100 or more annually automatically receive Fraser Forum magazine more or less monthly (I think there's a winter double-issue for December-January). The articles are great: intellectual ammo. Support those who support freedom. Ultimately, they're supporting you.

[dark_unicorn]

It appears that the Libertarian vs. Objectivist war of words continues with the bad advice of Jack Boulogne brings to question "who are the true advocates of Laissez Faire". Mr. Boulogne's comments start off with the right idea in having a sense of outrage towards John Paul's final statements before dying (unfortunately the man did not understand the nature of the world he lived in). But then concedes the false premise that self-interest is automatically a turn-off to the public. The reason why people were silent at John Paul's statements was because they didn't make any sense.

John Paul II has been what I consider one of the greatest tragedies of the Post Vatican II Papacy, whom began with the utterly collectivist Populorum Progressio (Populorum Malefactum would be a more appropriate title, I've spoken out against this doctrine many times) and final sputtered into oblivion with this statement of sheer intellectual vacancy. The man fought to free his home country from the grasp of soviet Communism and with his final breath he may have uttered the words that will deliver the entire world to such a fate. How in the hell are people supposed to escape poverty if they feel it wrong to make money? It's a contradiction in terms. Unfortunately Plato's ghost is still haunting the Catholic Church, while most Thomists seem to be faltering under the pressure to cozy up to the new tone in the Papacy. My efforts for the sake of profit feed my ability to donate to the Church, would the church have me stop my donations by swearing a vow of poverty? They have abandoned reason, and the few Capitalists left in their ranks such as myself risk much by attempting to offer a contradictory view of what Rome has been uttering.

Ayn Rand has been the only philosopher that I can turn to from recent history whom makes me understand that there is goodness in this universe, and that people can seek greatness through their works. Aquinas is still my preference for the exploration of my soul, but his ethics are of the 13th century, and have no place in the modern world.

P.S. - I apologize to the moderators here if I crossed the line of what can be considered advocating Objectivism. I needed to vent my opinion on this matter and unfortunately there are no other forums for me to do it in.

[JMeganSnow]

We don't demand that you advocate Objectivism, only that you refrain from advocating other ideologies. Thomism is a better ideology than most, frankly, in the sense of being pro-reason. It's based on Aristotle, after all.

That and I doubt anyone around here is going to complain if you complain about the previous Pope.

[dark_unicorn]

We don't demand that you advocate Objectivism, only that you refrain from advocating other ideologies. Thomism is a better ideology than most, frankly, in the sense of being pro-reason. It's based on Aristotle, after all.

That and I doubt anyone around here is going to complain if you complain about the previous Pope.

I understand and appreciate the perspective that you have shown JMeganSnow, but in this particular case (as in all others so far on this thread) I've spoken my mind on the issue. No one has defended capitalism as effectively as Rand has, and that's one of the reasons why I read her. Capitalism has been a benevolent system that has always rewarded the mindful and the diligent, and every time I hear it attacked by some in the Vatican in favor of some "Strawman" better system that still carries no name, it angers me.

You may actually find that I'll sound like an Objectivist at times, particularly on issues of Esthetics, Politics and most of the Ethics. This is not that I seek to advocate Objectivism in some sort of way of paying hommage to the others here, I believe what I say.

[Yes]

I'd like to comment on one aspect of Paul McKeever's response to Jack Boulogne:

To begin with, economic research has not demonstrated the superiority of “the market” or “laissez faire,” per se. Even trade in a communist economy occurs in “the market.” A perfectly “laissez faire” system (i.e., one in which government played no role at all) would actually be an anarchistic one governed not by market forces but by brute forces. Let us be precise. The success of economics has actually been to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism: a system in which government defends each person’s exclusive control over the use of his own land, chattels, money, inventions, etc. (i.e., in which government defends property rights), and in which one can trade the use of one’s property for other property or for labour....

It is a weakness of Mr. McKeever's argument that he has to try and define the vague notion of a "perfectly laissez-faire system." And, as such, draw the observation that it would be an anarchistic one.

The idea of a system based upon no government control or intervention of economics does not mean that government cannot be authorized by its citizens to protect the rights of its businessmen. Government control clearly indicates the control of trade, i.e., regulation of foreign trade, regulation of interstate commerce, price controls, tariffs, which mainly have the purpose of forcing the businessmen to "contribute" monies to government- that's what taxation is all about.