Rand Listed as Libertarian Advocate

[Guest Dan Edge]

Link

Mrs Rand would be quite upset. At the top of the page it says "Ayn Rand - Libertarian" in large text. The site says she "brought more people into the libertarian movement than anybody else." At teh very bottom of the page there is a disclaimer:

"Ayn Rand didn't call herself a libertarian -- in fact she didn't like the word (see Nathaniel Branden's excellent essay on this topic). However, we have found that Objectivists invariably score high libertarian on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, and their political philosophy is definitely more libertarian than any thing else. The libertarian movement has matured over the years, and we believe it's likely that she -- like Natheniel Branden -- would now be comfortable calling herself a libertarian."

--Dan Edge

[Rational_One 0]

Yeah, and I'm sure Kant would be "comfortable" calling himself an Objectivist too.

[Jay P 0]

Trying to claim Ayn Rand as one of themselves is nothing new for the libertarians; they've been doing it for at least 30 years, while simultaneously attacking her philosophy.

As for the libertarian movement having "matured", if anything, they're worse now than they were in the past. To pick just one recent example, on the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Libertarian Party and its presidential candidate had a meeting at which they urged their members to show up "wearing some clothing article colored black to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as a result of U.S. government policies."

Peter Schwartz, in his Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty essay documents how bad the Libertarians are. That essay also addresses the underlying reasons why the group is as evil as it is. They still accept the same ideas, so I don't know why anybody would expect them to change for the better.

[Janet_Busch 0]

Trying to claim Ayn Rand as one of themselves is nothing new for the libertarians; they've been doing it for at least 30 years, while simultaneously attacking her philosophy.

As for the libertarian movement having "matured", if anything, they're worse now than they were in the past.  To pick just one recent example, on the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Libertarian Party and its presidential candidate had a meeting at which they urged their members to show up "wearing some clothing article colored black to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as a result of U.S. government policies."

Peter Schwartz, in his Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty essay documents how bad the Libertarians are.  That essay also addresses the underlying reasons why the group is as evil as it is.  They still accept the same ideas, so I don't know why anybody would expect them to change for the better.

←

Miss Rand was very explicit about her political philosophy. It is called Capitalism. The fact that they need to call themselves something other than Capitalists says it all.

[Carlos 0]

'Miss Rand was very explicit about her political philosophy. It is called Capitalism. The fact that they need to call themselves something other than Capitalists says it all."

wow, very well put:

Janet_Busch--1

Libertarians--0

Sheez, that reminds me, I may be crazy but I don't think I've ever even heard a politician or figurehead ever literally defend Capitalism or maybe even utter the word in a loooooooooooooooooonnnnnng time.

I've heard people cautiously state or tiptoe around terms like "free-market", "small government", "fiscally conservative", "conservatism", "liberty", "freedom" (we all know Bush has said that at least once), "less government interference/restrictions", "privatize", "less red-tape", "de-regulate"...but no one, not even conservatives go "dammit we are defending Capitalism!" or "let's stand up for Capitalism!!1"

[Oakes 0]

Miss Rand was very explicit about her political philosophy.  It is called Capitalism.  The fact that they need to call themselves something other than Capitalists says it all.

Sheez, that reminds me, I may be crazy but I don't think I've ever even heard a politician or figurehead ever literally defend Capitalism or maybe even utter the word in a loooooooooooooooooonnnnnng time.

This is even more to our own benefit. The fact that libertarians and others on the right refuse to mentioned "capitalism" means that the concept is left relatively uncorrupted to us. It means that when the time comes for explicit political advocacy, we'll be able to use that word to differentiate ourselves from everyone else.

[MichaelJ 0]

Our prime minister from Australia explicitly mentions Capitalism. Most recently he did so in a recent press conference with George Bush.

Press Conference

Can I say to you, Mr. President, that the personal relationship that we have established on behalf of our two countries means a great deal to me. But it is, as you rightly say, based on a common view of the world that individual freedom is still the greatest glue that nations and peoples can have; that societies that honour the family as the most stabilising influence in our community, and also societies that recognise that the basis of national wealth is individual wealth built on competitive capitalism.

Not a perfect statement, but it is still reasonably close.

[Carlos 0]

*laughs* I may stand corrected

But to nitpick: "competitive capitalism" is there any other kind of capitalism?

Maybe I'm being picky here, but it troubles me that he thought he needed to put competitive in front of it.

[MichaelJ 0]

You are right that it is a mess of words, I think 'competitive capitalism' means a limited government except with antitrust to break up monopolies that aren't competitive. Not quite perfect in other words.

Still, it is a very good sign that Capitalism isn't considered a dirty word, at least down here. Now it is the job of the ARI to get rid of some of the vagueness around the term and define it correctly.

[RayK 0]

*laughs*  I may stand corrected

But to nitpick: "competitive capitalism"  is there any other kind of capitalism?

Maybe I'm being picky here, but it troubles me that he thought he needed to put competitive in front of it.

←

I would agree, competition is a by product of a person that is trying to achieve not the primary. I am sure that I have many competitors in my business, it is not my primary goal to compete with them, but to achieve the most that I possibly can. The achievement applies intellectually as much as monetarilly for me.

[Charlie 0]

I'd be interested to know how you guys would define the difference between Capitalist political philosophy and libertarian political philosophy?

[RayK 0]

To be even more specific on my last post I would like to add to it. It is not competition that brings out the best in someone, but the desire to achieve.

[Ed from OC 0]

I'd be interested to know how you guys would define the difference between Capitalist political philosophy and libertarian political philosophy?

←

For a full answer, check out "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz, an essay in "The Voice of Reason."

My answer:

What is a political philosophy, and how does one define it? Ayn Rand realized that a political philosophy has to be consistent with a broader philosophy. One's views in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics directly affect what one concludes to be the ideal in politics.

For instance, should government outlaw abortion? That's a political question, but one's answer to that question hinges on deeper philosophic issues:

Morality: Is abortion necessarily immoral? Should something be illegal just because it is immoral? Does a fetus have a right to exist? Does a woman have a right to her own body? Does the government have the right to decide for the woman?

Epistemology: what are rights? Where do they come from? Is there a conflict between individual rights of the woman and of the fetus? What's a fetus? Is abortion murder? What do these concepts mean? What principles come into play on this issue? Do principles matter? What are principles? Do we reach a conclusion by reason and facts, or do we consult the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, or tea leaves? How should a person decide whether to have an abortion? Should she decide on her own, obey her family, obey her religious leader, or obey the government?

Metaphysics: Is reality knowable, or is there another realm cut off from reason and the senses? Is there a god, whose iron law is to be strictly obeyed? Does the fetus even exist, or can it be wished out of existence? Can a woman simultaneously have an abortion and not have an abortion, at the same time and in the same respect? Can the government ban abortion and avoid the necessary, causal consequences of doing so?

By contrast, the libertarians deny, on principle, the need for any of this. "Freedom" or "liberty" or "the non-initiation of force" is taken as an out-of-context absolute, with no means of even defining the terms deemed necessary. One can be a libertarian and be for banning abortion -- or against it. One can be a libertarian and be in favor of defining these terms and principles rationally -- or not. One can be in favor of limited government to defend individual rights -- or anarchy.

The bottom line is libertarians and Objectivists are fundamentally different. Objectivism is consistent and well-defined, while libertarianism is inconsistent and contradictory. Objectivism upholds individual rights across the board, while libertarians talk about something called "individual rights" but with no clear, non-contradictory definition, in action are inconsistent.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

But to nitpick: "competitive capitalism" is there any other kind of capitalism?

←

I have heard or read at least two other phrases used: "crony capitalism" and even "state capitalism." I am unsure, but the former phrase apparently refers to political systems such as the one in Russia. There, political "connections" are the path to survival and "profits." The latter phrase, used decades ago, refers to a form of statism in which the state owns or controls or favors industries, not for the benefit of "the people," but for the benefit of the managers of the firms and their political backers. This is a term that left-wing statists use to distance themselves from the destruction caused by "selfish" statists -- that is, fascists.

So, in an environment using such terms, "competitive" capitalism is distinctive. However, there is a better solution.

Objectivists can deal easily with this terminological problem by using the term "capitalism" alone as a label for a certain idea, an idea which can be succinctly and rigorously defined as referring to a political and economic system in which the state's only role is the protection of rights (especially to life, liberty, and property) from aggression and fraud. No terminological qualifiers are necessary, just as none are necessary for "selfishness" when used by individuals who can back the term up with understanding of the concept it names in the full context of an objective philosophy.

[Carlos 0]

"I'd be interested to know how you guys would define the difference between Capitalist political philosophy and libertarian political philosophy?"

I can't remember who it was on here (forum) who said this but I think they put it best when they stated something to the effect of

"Libertarians are not so much 'pro-freedom' as they are 'anti-government'"

A 'friend' that I argue with constantly, who (whom, who or that?) is not an Objectivist, that refers to himself as a Libertarian, argues for it not really by positives but by a stream of negatives: "government regulation and restriction causes these problems, therefore, we should remove it"

not "government regulations and restriction go against life, liberty, individual rights, and the American Way, and therefore, we should remove them"

From reading bits of John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" I think I could tentatively say the same about him.

And now that I think about it, even my father now identifies himself as a libertarian for the same reasons (he recently read Give Me a Break).

To me it is almost as if Libertarians support free-markets out of a sense of Utilitarianism or maybe even anarchy, where as an Objectivist justifies support for free markets by ethics/individual rights.

Someone rap me on the nose as need be.

[Carlos 0]

I guess what I meant to say was:

Libertarians want free markets because they think it is practical.

Oists want free markets because they think it is ethical (I know an Oist does not see a divergence between the ethical and practical, that was not my point)

[Oakes 0]

I'd be interested to know how you guys would define the difference between Capitalist political philosophy and libertarian political philosophy?

Their "political philosophies" differ because their underlying philosophies do; the latter determines the former. One is based on an objective ethics (and metaphysics/epistemology), while the other is based on no particular ethics, which ultimately means personal subjectivism. With an improper foundation, it shouldn't be surprising that libertarians overwhelmingly uphold weak-kneed non-interventionism, and certain circles embrace anarchism and anti-abortionism, among other corrupt ideas.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

It is not competition that brings out the best in someone, but the desire to achieve.

←

In discussions with non-Objectivists, I make the point you have made here. I also point out that there are two kinds of competition:

1. Head-to-head competition, where two or more parties each try (merely) to be better than the others. This approach allows others to set the standards. Whether this is an instance of social metaphysics depends on the context and the individuals involved.

2. After-the-fact competition, where buyers of products and services choose among items offered on the market. In this case, each producer strives for the best he can do and presents the results on the market.

Of course, many individuals and companies, are -- as usual -- mixed cases.

[Jay P 0]

This is even more to our own benefit. The fact that libertarians and others on the right refuse to mentioned "capitalism" means that the concept is left relatively uncorrupted to us. It means that when the time comes for explicit political advocacy, we'll be able to use that word to differentiate ourselves from everyone else.

←

Yes, it is indeed rare to find somebody who openly advocates capitalism and calls it by that term.

It was this very fact that contributed, 30 years ago, to my deciding to buy my first of Ayn Rand's books: Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. When I saw the book displayed for sale, I immediately noticed the word "capitalism". My experience was that that word is something that is never used in a neutral manner. It's either used by a virulent enemy of capitalism, or a strong supporter. (In this way, it's like "atheism". The word is not used casually or lightly.) Not knowing which category this book fell into, I picked it up, read a small amount: enough to see that the book's author was indeed a defender of capitalism. That was all the information I needed in order to buy it. If its title had contained the more vague and perhaps euphemistic "free market" instead, it might never have caught my eye.

So the free and proud use of the word "capitalism" is indeed something that sets Objectivism apart. Good for Ayn Rand that she did not try to water down her writings (or titles) in order to somehow avoid offending the sensibilities of people who are afraid to take a stand!

.....

As an addition to the discussion about libertarians, I'll add that it has been my experience that not only do they usually shy away from the word "capitalism", but that many libertarians positively bristle at the thought of being identified as an advocate of capitalism. I remember many years ago encountering a Libertarian Party member distributing handbills with "Libertarianism is not Capitalism!" in large block letters. He definitely wanted the world to know.

[Free Capitalist 0]

The really frustrating part of all this is that the Libs put Ayn Rand under their general umbrella, as if they were first and more fundamental, and she then just happened to come along at some point later. As far as I know, however, the Libs are actually a reject wing of Objectivism, splitting off in the 50s due to the likes of Murray Rothbard. The fact that they view themselves as the originators, and AR as simply someone secondary who subscribes to 'their' ideology, is really just breathtaking.

[Joss Delage 0]

From reading bits of John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" I think I could tentatively say the same about him.

←

Stossel specifically says that he doesn't consider himself a Libertarian because he thinks a Government is necessary for the army, police, justice, and (gasp!) environment protection (the latter I suspect because he doesn't understand the need for the "environment" to be privately owned).

He claims for himself the term "classical liberal" I think.

[Joss Delage 0]

Most people I know do not have a well defined philosophy, even when they have deeply held convictions on politics. How would you call someone who has the correct ideas about politics without the philosophical background? Classical liberal?

[Jonathan Awesome 0]

That's what I call them.

[egochick 0]

The Advocates aren't exactly the Libertarian Party, nor are they "official." They do voice the opinions of a large portion of LP members and so it's typically safe to take them as a good example of libertarians. That aside, the largest source of mainstream confusion (politically) between Objectivism and the LP is that Objectivism offers specific political principles backed up with a specific (and rational) philosophy and the LP just wants "less government."

Because libertarians are just "less government", I wouldn't say that they have a political philosophy. They have a political idea, but that is about it. Having a philosophy is more than having a single vague concrete. A philosophy implies that it is a principle that has a validation and applies to reality. The libertarian idea of "less government" - regardless of your reasons or applications for it - certainly does not fit that description.

Having been a libertarian activist before I heard of Objectivism, the Libertarians are indeed a crazy bunch. This comes a lot from being formed out of people who "hate that the government does x" whatever x may be. So because they started out with nothing more that "less government", they have become a large ragtag bunch of just about anyone. And I mean *anyone*, having seen such things as marxist libertarians in my time with them.

[Oakes 0]

And I mean *anyone*, having seen such things as marxist libertarians in my time with them. 

Yikes! I've had the displeasure of seeing the variety of flavors myself. I used to be something like a "transhumanist libertarian." I've since revoked both parts.