The Rights (and Wrongs) of Ayn Rand

Questions about Objectivism
1

While poking around the internet for material on Rand’s ideas about conflicts of interest, I came across this article:

http://www.geocities.com/amosapient/rand.html

I found a superficial issue with this article, that being the author’s insistence on using the term “libertarian rights”, and so emailed him about it. His response was this:

I noted Rand’s refusal to apply the term to herself in endnote 1. It’s simply a point on which she was clearly mistaken. Here’s a quote on the relation between libertarians and Objectivists. It’s from an article by Roderick Long. (I’ve altered the quote slightly, substituting “libertarians” for a coined term he uses in the article [“Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class” in Social Philosophy and Policy, Summer 1998]. As he uses it, it refers to the same group as those who are commonly called ‘libertarians’.)

After mentioning Peter Schwartz’s “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,” he responds,

…I challenge anyone to construct criteria that are simultaneously broad enough to include the major thinkers and traditions of the libertarian movement yet narrow enough to exclude Rand. In my judgment, Rand and her followers should be considered libertarians whether they like the label or not, since the features of the libertarian position they reject are either (a) held by only some libertarians and therefore not essential to the libertarian position, or ( :wink: not held by any libertarians at all and therefore based on misunderstandings (often fantastic ones). Randians try to distance themselves from libertarians on the grounds that the libertarian movement tolerates a number of different philosophical approaches to grounding libertarianism, while Randians insist that Ayn Rand’s Objectivist approach provides the only acceptable grounding. But this is a bit like denying the existence of God yet declining to be called an atheist on the grounds that there are many different kinds of atheists with grounds for disbelief different from one’s own; disbelief in God makes one an atheist, regardless of how one feels about other atheists.

I’ll add one point I noticed for the first time when I read this. The argument (which is itself based on misunderstandings) that libertarians differ from Objectivists in being permissive about foundations, whereas Objectivists are not, is circular. It does not work unless it is assumed from the outset that Objectivists are not libertarians. For if Objectivists are libertarians, then not all libertarians are permissive about foundations; hence, being permissive about foundations can’t be an essential trait of libertarians. But the argument was supposed to show that there is a fundamental difference between Objectivists and libertarians, not presuppose it.

Best wishes,

Rob

–

Robert Bass, Ph.D

Department of Philosophy

Coastal Carolina University

I wonder if anyone has a criticism for Rob here? I know the article is lengthy, but the man bothered me very much and I feel he has missed something. To be honest, his intelligence has intimidated me a little though I feel he is wrong. I cannot seem to find the words. Would anyone like to help me? I know the essay is quite long, but perhaps reading the last paragraph will motivate someone to reply. It states:

In summary, though Rand has done interesting and suggestive work, though there is much that may have a place in moral and political theory, her ambition exceeded her achievement. Neither her attempts to validate egoism nor any of the arguments that seek to base libertarian rights upon it are successful. This is, in the end, just as well. For, if the arguments of the foregoing section are correct, the two positions are not really compatible. Rand has not successfully defended the universal truth of the Harmony Thesis, and even that, if it could be done, would not be sufficient to fully reconcile egoism and libertarian rights.[58]

You can reply directly to him on his website, but a conversation here would be appreciated, if only for my own sake.

2

I didn’t go to the link, but I did read what you supplied of his article here. Objectivists can not be part of the Libertarian party because the libertarian party does not have a proper philosophical base, and thus will not be able to defend liberty. This is a fact of reality, and the key point.

You can say that there are certain superficial overlaps in the beliefs of libertarians and Objectivists, but without the proper underpinnings those similarities are not important. Why? Because hierarchically the more fundamental ideas determines how ideas are defended and thus how they will develop over time.

Objectivists have Reality->Reason->Egoism->The Rights of Man

A libertarian might have God–>The Rights of Man

Other libertarians might have something else.

The second foundation will not give you the rights of man. It will decay over time and morph into something else. There are libertarians, for example, who believe abortion is murder. This follows from the idea that there is a spirit inside of people that gives us rights and makes us human.

What happens when you label Objectivists libertarian is that it steals in the implication that we are fundamentally similar to other libertarians, when we are radically different. This is why I don’t apply the term libertarian to myself. The term is superficial and misleading.

Ayn Rand has very successfully defended egoism, btw. I have defended it enough to know there is no good opposition out there to it.

3

The second foundation will not give you the rights of man. It will decay over time and morph into something else. There are libertarians, for example, who believe abortion is murder. This follows from the idea that there is a spirit inside of people that gives us rights and makes us human.

Rob mentions this in the quote he supplied. He says that libertarians which hold views that are atypical of the libertarian platform must be dismissed as they are not reflective of the whole. I suppose the people you mentioned above would fall into that category. What puzzles me is that I believe he is saying that regardless of the starting point, if people come to the same conclusion, they can be put in the same category. You start from point A, and I from point B, but we both arrive at point C. We can thus both be labeled as “those who arrived at point C”. In this case, “point c” would be a political system which calls for an extremely limited government.

Here’s my question: do objectivists and libertarians hold the same ideas about government? If so, and one agrees with the example above, isn’t Rob correct?

Also, this is not the only issue he challenges Rand on. In fact, it’s almost trivial in comparison to his other ideas, especially Rand’s conception of “rights”. If no one is going to click the link, I’ll call attention to it here, but I really hope you all read at least part of his essay.

"Two features of this argument are problematic. In the first place, it seems to be incomplete as an argument for the liberties which Rand would recognize as falling under the protection of individual rights. As it is stated, it is only an argument for a right to live as a rational being. But there are ways of being irrational by Rand’s standards – living unproductively from an inheritance, for example – that would also be protected by the principle of individual rights. She may disapprove of such behavior, but it would be deeply at odds with both the implicit and explicit force of her political theory to hold that the worthless heir has no right to his possessions (or life or freedom): Basic rights are requirements based on human nature; they are not gifts or permissions granted by others nor are they conditional upon good behavior.[47]

A second and more fundamental difficulty is that it is not clear what – if anything – justifies the transition from what it is right for a person to do to what one has a right to do. To make the former claim is to say that one ought to do it (whatever it is); to make the latter claim is to say that others ought not to interfere (in certain ways). Both are moral judgments, but they are addressed to different parties and require different actions (or inactions) of their addressees. On the face of it, these are not equivalent, and the transition from what it is right to do to what one has a right to do appears to be just a play on words. The problem is only rendered more acute if egoism is the background moral theory in terms of which the rightness of actions is judged. Further argument is needed to show that self-interested reasons for action either cannot or will not generate conflict. (Why can it not be true that I ought to [try to] do x and also true that someone else ought to [try to] prevent the doing of x?)"

4

Rob mentions this in the quote he supplied. He says that libertarians which hold views that are atypical of the libertarian platform must be dismissed as they are not reflective of the whole.

He’s wrong. Ron Paul, for example, headed up the libertarian party and on important fundamentals he is not at all like an Objectivist.

I suppose the people you mentioned above would fall into that category. What puzzles me is that I believe he is saying that regardless of the starting point, if people come to the same conclusion, they can be put in the same category. You start from point A, and I from point B, but we both arrive at point C. We can thus both be labeled as “those who arrived at point C”. In this case, “point c” would be a political system which calls for an extremely limited government.

He’s being rationalistic, not objective. The objective evaluation is as I’ve mentioned, which is that the ideas underpinning a political system are what will determine how that political system develops. We aren’t talking about going from point A to B to C. Rather, A is the foundation that makes possible B, which is the foundation that makes possible C. A is more important than B and B more important than C, because A determines B which determines the nature of C.

Here’s my question: do objectivists and libertarians hold the same ideas about government? If so, and one agrees with the example above, isn’t Rob correct?

I’d say that libertarians at essence are anti-government, not pro-freedom. Objectivist are pro-individual rights, not anti-government. In fact, the term libertarian is hard to pin down. It’s an amorphous term so far as I can tell.

Also, this is not the only issue he challenges Rand on. In fact, it’s almost trivial in comparison to his other ideas, especially Rand’s conception of “rights”. If no one is going to click the link, I’ll call attention to it here, but I really hope you all read at least part of his essay.

Maybe he should post here.

"Two features of this argument are problematic. In the first place, it seems to be incomplete as an argument for the liberties which Rand would recognize as falling under the protection of individual rights. As it is stated, it is only an argument for a right to live as a rational being. But there are ways of being irrational by Rand’s standards – living unproductively from an inheritance, for example – that would also be protected by the principle of individual rights.

Rand’s position is not that anything that would be legal is moral. You are free to be as immoral as you want, so long as you don’t encroach upon the rights of others.

She may disapprove of such behavior, but it would be deeply at odds with both the implicit and explicit force of her political theory to hold that the worthless heir has no right to his possessions (or life or freedom): Basic rights are requirements based on human nature; they are not gifts or permissions granted by others nor are they conditional upon good behavior.[47]

What would be at odds is that those who have earned the wealth don’t have the right to dispose of it as they wish, including giving it to someone unworthy of it. But, again, you are free to be immoral. Indeed, the only way for a person to be moral is if he is free to make his own choices. Morality can’t be forced on someone.

A second and more fundamental difficulty is that it is not clear what – if anything – justifies the transition from what it is right for a person to do to what one has a right to do.

A man owns himself, so he is free to act in anyway he wishes, including toward his own destruction, although to be moral he must act for his benefit long range. According to rights theory he is free to act so long as he doesn’t encroach upon the rights of others. The basic idea here is that freedom is fundamental to survival, because the freedom to act is fundamental to survival, and thus the limitations put on actors are minimized. Now, to be sure, observing the rights of others is part of being moral too, but in that case other people have a say, because their rights are being affected, so they can take action to defend themselves. This is because in a social context there is reciprocity, you observe my rights, and I’ll observe yours, but that reciprocity is anchored in morality, so that it is a moral obligation, not an arbitrary one. However, when an immoral act does not encroach upon the rights of others, others have no say, because their lives and property are not being affected.

I’ve packed a lot in that one paragraph, but the question he asked really requires a great deal more in response, including reading Ayn Rand’s essays on Objectivist morality and rights theory.

5

We can thus both be labeled as “those who arrived at point C”. In this case, “point c” would be a political system which calls for an extremely limited government.

This can’t even be said to be true–libertarians don’t want the same kind of “limited” government that Objectivists want. We want limitations that are based on rights. They want limitations that are based on letting them do whatever they, personally, feel they want. They have more than once declared that it doesn’t matter (to them) why you want what you want.

If Rob really thinks that anyone who arrives at a given position qualifies as belonging to the same group, I challenge him to go around calling Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons “Catholics”. I mean, they have all concluded that there’s a God and they all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, they should all belong to the same group, right?

Rob is also making a huge error in equating the process of conceptualization (in which you have to unite things that are similar) with voluntary human group identification. People, unlike objects, choose their intellectual traits and thus choose what groups they want to belong to. If people say “we’re not libertarians, we don’t want to be identified with the libertarian movement for these reasons, etc.” then they *aren’t* libertarians because they refuse to *associate* with libertarians. He’s trying to smuggle in an inappropriate context, here.

6

If Rob really thinks that anyone who arrives at a given position qualifies as belonging to the same group, I challenge him to go around calling Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons “Catholics”. I mean, they have all concluded that there’s a God and they all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, they should all belong to the same group, right?

Obviously they do, and you just identified what it is. Neither Jehovah’s Witnesses nor Mormons are Catholics, but Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics are all Christians.

Using “~” to mean “are analogous to”, consider two analogies:

  1. Objectivists~Mormons and Libertarians~Christians

  2. Objectivists~Mormons and Libertarians~Catholics

Anyone who argues that Objectivists are Libertarians would say that analogy 1 is appropriate and analogy 2 is not appropriate, whereas anyone who argues that Objectivists are not Libertarians would say that analogy 2 is appropriate and analogy 1 is not appropriate.

John Link

7

Bass ought to be embarrassed by his argument, which is at best advanced sophistry resting on a lousy epistemology rooted in the primacy of consciousness, the nature of which should be clear from his statement " if Objectivists are libertarians, then not all libertarians are permissive about foundations". Since Objectivists are not libertarians, we know that it is unnecessary to read the rest of the sentence. It is a logical fallacy to identify a partial similarity between two concepts and conclude that the concepts are in fact thesame. Example: cows have teats, sheep have teats; therefore sheep are just a kind of cow.

It’s not hard to find non-essential similarities between Objectivism and other groups. Objectivism supports a woman’s right to abortion, so does liberalism, but we cannot validly infer that Objectivism is liberalism. Objectivist epistemology is an empiricist epistemology (not a rationalist one), and so is behaviorism, but clearly Objectivism is not behaviorism. Objectivism abjures hedonistic sex and drug use as does social conservatism, but Objectivism is not social conservatism. Objectivism supports an individual’s legal right to engage in hedonistic sex and drug use as does hippyism, but Objectivism is not hippyism.

Bass is also confused about libertarianism itself, if he equates the LP platform with “the nature of libertarianism”. If that were really so, that would mean that before 1972, there was no such thing as libertarianism, which is plainly false. There is a small germ of insight there, though, that libertarianism really doesn’t have a clearly-defined essential nature. The most fundamental split within libertarianism is the anarchism / minarchism division, reflecting the fact that libertarianism is so philosophically ungrounded that anarchism is clearly quite consistent with libertarianism. But anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with Objectivism. So obviously, just focusing on political questions – a small portion of what Objectivism is – Objectivism is not a “kind of libertarianism”.

There is no concept that subsumes Objectivism and libertarianism. Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is not. Libertarianism is a political movement, Objectivism is not. If Bass had been familiar with the Objectivist epistemology, he would have recognised that there is no concept which implies “that which is Objectivism” and also implies “that which is libertarianism”, that is, you cannot integrate the species into a genus.

8

A second and more fundamental difficulty is that it is not clear what – if anything – justifies the transition from what it is right for a person to do to what one has a right to do. To make the former claim is to say that one ought to do it (whatever it is); to make the latter claim is to say that others ought not to interfere (in certain ways). Both are moral judgments, but they are addressed to different parties and require different actions (or inactions) of their addressees. On the face of it, these are not equivalent, and the transition from what it is right to do to what one has a right to do appears to be just a play on words. The problem is only rendered more acute if egoism is the background moral theory in terms of which the rightness of actions is judged. Further argument is needed to show that self-interested reasons for action either cannot or will not generate conflict. (Why can it not be true that I ought to [try to] do x and also true that someone else ought to [try to] prevent the doing of x?)"

Reason is the only means a human being has to survive. Therefor one has to be free to exercise his rational faculty.

The supremacy of reason is also what must govern human interactions: namely the rational faculty each person has. My reason cannot govern the actions of another, precisely because then that person would not be acting on reason: he would be acting on faith, or on force (faith in me, or force I initiated, to get him to do something). Either way, the guiding principle would be that his rational faculty is not what ough to rule his life and actions, but rather his faith in me or the force I apply to make him act.

That supremacy of reason is what justifies the principle according to which humans should never initiate force against another, and the principle of individual rights. As Ayn Rand said, people using their rational faculty will come to different conclusions, and reality will be the judge of who was right. Force cannot replace that ultimate judge which is reality. (not an exact quote)

As for the connection between egoism and rights, they are two sides of the same coin: egoism is the recognition of the fact that my reason (my rational judgement) is what ought to rule my life and actions. Individual rights are the recognition of the fact that another person’s rational faculty is what ought to rule his life. (And in fact that human nature is such, that all humans have this same rational faculty, which ought to rule their individual lives)

Further argument is needed to show that self-interested reasons for action either cannot or will not generate conflict.

Actually, all that is needed to make it clear that egoism won’t generate conflict is a definition of egoism. If defined according to Objectivism, then no such conflict is possible, since the recognition that the surest link we have to reality (the judge of our rational conclusions) is each person’s rational faculty, and that reason and force cannot coexist are all part of that context in which egoism is defined.

By definition then, all force, applied against any available intellect, will hinder me in my egoism.

9

Randians try to distance themselves from libertarians on the grounds that the libertarian movement tolerates a number of different philosophical approaches to grounding libertarianism, while Randians insist that Ayn Rand’s Objectivist approach provides the only acceptable grounding.

Grounding, for what? Libertarianism? But Objectivists do not want libertarianism in the first place, so I don’t see why we would be seeking any kind of grounding for it.

Apparently, we have a misunderstanding based on the definition of “libertarianism.” The author seems to be working on the basis of libertarianism being defined as “support for individual rights.” But that would be like defining a bum as “a person who purchases alcoholic beverages.” So, for example, if you are watching a movie and see a refined British gentleman order a vodka martini, shaken, not stirred, you’ll know he’s a bum!

10

If no one is going to click the link, I’ll call attention to it here, but I really hope you all read at least part of his essay.

In the interest of saving people some time, I’m going to advise against spending time on the essay, based on this paragraph taken from the beginning of it: [note: the cardinal virtues are the seven Galt mentions in his speech]

“There are two principal difficulties with the derivations Rand proposes for these cardinal virtues. The first is that she constantly uses and relies upon the generic ‘man’. For example, Productiveness is the recognition … that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life … Productive work is the road of man’s unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character … [8] While it is certainly true that without productive work, the human species would perish, it does not follow that every (mature) human being must engage in productive work in order to survive. If ‘man’ refers to the human species, the statement may be true but doesn’t generate conclusions that apply to each individual; if, on the other hand, ‘man’ is meant to apply directly to the individual, the statement is simply false (as a generalization). Rand’s answer, that those who depend on others for their support are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable,[9] seems to overstate the case since dependence is not destruction[10] and, if correct, would prove too much. I t would prove, for instance, that no one should be an engineer or a novelist and therefore dependent on others , such as farmers, for food. The question, “What if everyone did that?” is too blunt an instrument to draw useful moral distinctions because most of the things people do would prove impossible if practiced universally.”

The part I highlighted proves (to those of you who are familiar with Atlas Shrugged) that the author is deliberately (or through a complete lack of intelligence, but it doesn’t matter) ignoring the context in which Ayn Rand defined “parasites” as those “who’s life depends on others”. In Atlas Shrugged she spends passages upon passages explaining how trade works in Galt’s gulch (and not just), to a point where even a halfwit would understand at least this concept, and that trade is not dependence, even if he would not pick up on anything from Galt’s speech.

At this point, I stopped reading, so I wouldn’t be able to tell you what comes next, but it can’t be good, coming from someone who made the above argument.

11

Apparently, we have a misunderstanding based on the definition of “libertarianism.” The author seems to be working on the basis of libertarianism being defined as “support for individual rights.” But that would be like defining a bum as “a person who purchases alcoholic beverages.”

P.S. Here’s what would be a more accurate definition of libertarianism: the anti-intellectual, pseudo-capitalist, and often anarchistic movement initiated by Ayn Rand plagiarist Murray Rothbard and his clique.

12

The part I highlighted proves (to those of you who are familiar with Atlas Shrugged) that the author is deliberately (or through a complete lack of intelligence, but it doesn’t matter) ignoring the context in which Ayn Rand defined “parasites” as those “who’s life depends on others”.

In fact, my experience in dealing with the Bass-like opponents of Objectivism is that they specialize in philosophical disintegration – massive context-dropping, and focusing instead one one or two sentences. Their view is, apparently, that every philosophical statement should be a self-contained complete and self-evident truth. Of course this is impossible, which feeds their nihilistic tendencies.

13

After mentioning Peter Schwartz’s “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,” he responds:

…I challenge anyone to construct criteria that are simultaneously broad enough to include the major thinkers and traditions of the libertarian movement yet narrow enough to exclude Rand.

That’s a silly challenge. It would be to logic like challenging someone to add 2 and 2 together is to math:

"I challenge anyone to come up with a criteria that is broad enough to include B,C,D,E,F and G, but narrow enough to exclude A.

Straight forward answer: non A."

Apply that piece of basic logic to this guy’s request, and the criteria is simple: everyone who doesn’t understand or agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

That criteria certainly excludes Objectivists and Ayn Rand, and it most definitely is wide enough to include anyone else you wish it to include.

Obviously, there are plenty of other such criteria (Capitalism Forever gave a good one in his definition of Libertarians), but this is the answer which illustrates this gentleman’s lack of ability to reason best.

14

If we do not use the word ‘libertarian’ to describe our political beliefs on account of it being used by people like Rothbard, then why do we use the word ‘egoism’ to describe our ethical beliefs despite it being used by people like Nietzsche? I accept that a man can’t really be an egoist if he sacrifices others to himself but then, he can’t be a supporter of liberty (which I assume is where the word ‘libertarian’ comes from) if he promotes anarchism.

In Marx and Engel’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ they attacked various forms of communism and reclaimed the word for themselves, couldn’t Rand have done this for libertarianism?

15

In Marx and Engel’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ they attacked various forms of communism and reclaimed the word for themselves, couldn’t Rand have done this for libertarianism?

I assume that she found Capitalism to be a better word to describe her politics. She wasn’t really in the business of reclaiming words, she just used the ones that were closest to what she meant. The words themselves however aren’t that important, since she always defined precisely what she meant by them.

Marx and Engel on the other hand were in the business of considering “making” words to mean what they want them to mean a victory.

16

If we do not use the word ‘libertarian’ to describe our political beliefs on account of it being used by people like Rothbard, then why do we use the word ‘egoism’ to describe our ethical beliefs despite it being used by people like Nietzsche?

Because in actual fact, libertarian political ideas by their nature are so unlike Objectivist political ideas that it would be misleading to imply a similarity. Egoism holds that a moral being will do what is in his own self-interest, and that is what Objectivism holds. Libertarianism is very hard to define, but it seems to refer to politically promoting individual liberty and the reduction or elimination of government. This is not what Objectivism seeks. (If you’re familiar with Objectivism, you’ll understand that the political interest of Objectivism is subjugating society to moral law which proptects the rights of individuals from the initiation of force, and that reduction of government is not the same as delimiting the scope of proper government; obviously, eliminating government is a fundamental inconsistency between Objectivism and libertarianism).

In Marx and Engel’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ they attacked various forms of communism and reclaimed the word for themselves, couldn’t Rand have done this for libertarianism?

Are you equating Objectivism and communism?? The term Objectivism predates non-anarchist libertarianism in wider usage by a bit. Free-market supporters did not even start to co-opt the term from the leftists until some time around the early 60’s, and libertarianism in the “slightly like Objectivism” sense didn’t exist until the Goldwater campaign. Objectivism (with that name) predates this by something like four years. Why then should Rand change the name of her philosophy to adopt the name of a late-comer belief system that isn’t even particularly similar to her philosophy?

17

If we do not use the word ‘libertarian’ to describe our political beliefs on account of it being used by people like Rothbard, then why do we use the word ‘egoism’ to describe our ethical beliefs despite it being used by people like Nietzsche? I accept that a man can’t really be an egoist if he sacrifices others to himself but then, he can’t be a supporter of liberty (which I assume is where the word ‘libertarian’ comes from) if he promotes anarchism.

In Marx and Engel’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ they attacked various forms of communism and reclaimed the word for themselves, couldn’t Rand have done this for libertarianism?

Ayn Rand preceded libertarianism. What Rothbard did was basically take Ayn Rand’s philosophy, throw out everything except the politics, and then turn the politics into something superficially similar to capitalism as Miss Rand defined it, but lacking all the essence and often bordering on (or even being) anarchism. Anarchism, of course, is the political expression of nihilism–which is as far from Objectivism as you can get. Libertarians are pretty much an earlier version of David Kelley’s tolerationist perverters of Objectivism, and calling ourselves libertarians would be no less absurd than calling ourselves tolerationists.

But let me ask you a counter-question. Why is it that people like libertarians and Kelley’s gang are so interested in getting Objectivists to associate themselves with them? “Objectivism is really a form of libertarianism” has been a very recurrent theme on this forum from the days of its beginning. Why does the big tent of libertarianism find it such a great priority to bring precisely us under its fold? I mean, if someone had ideas very similar to Objectivism, but wouldn’t call himself an Objectivist because of a minor disagreement, say over something in esthetics, I wouldn’t mind it very much and I certainly wouldn’t expend any significant amount of my time to “convince him that he is really an Objectivist, even though he does not know it.” If anything, I would discuss the esthetics issue with him to see if I can convince him of the Objectivist position, or if perhaps he can convince me of his. Other than that, I would be glad that he has such a rational philosophy, and that would be the end of it. I would not want to get him to call himself an Objectivist; in fact, as long as he disagrees with some of the Objectivist esthetics, even on some minor point, I would insist that he do not label himself one.

18

I didn’t know that Objectivism preceded ‘rightist’ libertarianism, so that answers my question. I was confused as to why Rand seemed to say:

“Never mind Nietzsche’s definition of egoism, my definition is correct” but didn’t go on to say:

“Never mind Rothbard’s definition of libertarian, my definition is correct”.

So egoism existed before Rand, but libertarian came into use after her philosophy and the man who used it in the modern sense actively plagiarised Rand.

I also thought that the word ‘libertarian’ seemed be more fitting for a social and an economic system whereas capitalism seems like only economics. I remember reading somewhere that Branden brought up the word ‘libertarian’ to Rand earlier for that reason but she dismissed it as sounding silly and made up.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me, but since I don’t know what I’m talking about I’ll go and read some more. :pimp:

19

<snip>

But let me ask you a counter-question. Why is it that people like libertarians and Kelley’s gang are so interested in getting Objectivists to associate themselves with them? “Objectivism is really a form of libertarianism” has been a very recurrent theme on this forum from the days of its beginning. Why does the big tent of libertarianism find it such a great priority to bring precisely us under its fold?

<snip>

  1. Claiming Objectivists as Libertarians gives Libertarianism a philosophical legitimacy it does not deserve. As others have mentioned, Libertarianism has no grounding. It’s just a vague collection of ill-defined goals. When they claim “objectivists are libertarians”, they imply a sound base.

Why did the government think it was so important that Rearden voluntarily sign over his mills? Because it gave the process an air of legitimacy it did not deserve. This is the same type of lie, without the force behind it.

  1. Claiming Objectivists as Libertarians furthers Libertarians’ political goals of group membership. Libertarians who might be curious about Rand are told, “Oh, Objectivists are Libertarians”. Any further questioning seems unnecessary. It also implies Objectivists are no more deeply grounded than Libertarians, so why search for deeper meaning? This is as deep as it gets: moderately smaller government, individual freedom. We know better, which is why both sides keep saying opposite things.

Edit:

  1. Probably the most common reason in real life: Libertarianism is defined as essentially “smaller government and individual freedom”. Libertarians look at what Objectivism mandates, and say “oh, you’re for that too. You’re one of us!”

This has a lot of parallels with modern Christianity, where most practitioners have little to do with the details of the Bible or Judaism. If one believes in being kind to their fellow man, and living a “basically good” life, most people would consider that “Christian”. That the word has a more precise meaning is lost on a lot of people. (“Basically good” has been left intentionally ill-defined, because that’s how it is in their minds.)

20

She most certainly was not a libertarian, and too much is made of her principle of non-initiation of force. With all due respect to Professor Bass, I think he is ignoring the rather ruthless side of Rand, which had more in common with Nietzsche, and which resembles nothing in the American liberal tradition. Her views on race and evolution seems to come strait out of Nietzsche (who was himself deeply confused about race and evolution), although she rejected his ethical conclusions. She wisely admitted her ignorance on this subject, but her comments on the matter are striking, and seriously opposed to many of her public statements. For instance, she mused that “Perhaps we are really in the process of evolving from apes to Supermen—and the rational faculty is the dominant characteristic of the better species, the Superman” and “We may still be in evolution, as a species, and living side by side with some ‘missing links’”. These “missing links” were those people she deemed to be “non-rational”; she said that it was ethical to enslave and control such people. Even the most extreme version of this in the American liberal tradition (Madison? Lippmann?) does not come close to such authoritarianism. This comes strait out of the Nietzsche-Schopenhauer tradition, and could even be ascribed to Aristotle (who was himself deeply racist, and thought that it was the moral duty of Greeks to treat Persians as slaves), and is basically what one would expect to find in a soviet-trained philosopher. It certainly has no relation to the philosophy of any libertarian thinkers.

Adam Smith believed in the markets and capitalism because he held that a liberated market would lead to more equality. And make no mistake, equality is a central part of the liberal tradition, along with liberty and justice. The libertarian argument has always been that liberty must come first, and that a truly liberal market will lead to equality and justice. Rand, like Nietzsche, had little regard for equality. She was quite right to point out her fundamental disagreement with the libertarian position, and her complete rejection of anarcho-capitalism is instructive. Her embrace of capitalism was not out of a liberal position, but more of a social Darwinist perspective. She shared Nietzsche’s romantic view of the “great man among insects”, and she simply felt that capitalism was the best means for unleashing such giants. Rand differed with Nietzsche only in her view of what this “great man” should be; Nietzsche preferred the conqueror, while Rand preferred the tycoons of industry.

Rand differed from Nietzsche in another critical respect which caused her to come to quite different conclusions. Nietzsche, as a believer in Lamarckian heredity, held that traits gained during the life of an organism could be inherited by its off-spring, a common (but huge) error of his age. Thus, he believed that an individual — through profound suffering, trials, and hardship — could produce a child of innate greatness. Rand utterly rejected view this in favor of the equally flawed error of her own age: that all humans are born with a ‘blank slate’. Rand didn’t quite understand this difference (I doubt she even knew what Lamarckian heredity was), and her discussions on this are devoid of any scientific terminology. It seems unlikely that she had anything resembling an understanding of genetics. She simply rejected Nietzsche’s belief in innate instincts in favor of a popular idea of her own time (and an idea very popular in the Soviet Union, it should be added), the idea of Tabula Rasa. Marxists had been advancing this concept (both in the Soviet Union and the west), as an antidote to the failure of Lamarckism, which had been the previous Marxist doctrine before it was disproved.

So to answer Professor Bass, I believe I have identified a few critical distinctions that are “narrow enough to exclude Rand” from the libertarian tradition.