Ms. Sand never does anything out of her subjective feelings, only out of reason
Posted on October 21st, 2009
by Jack Ross |
|
New Ayn Rand biographer Jennifer Burns was on The Daily Show last night. The discussion was rather underwhelming if basically correct, but one point was made which grabbed my attention and merited further discussion: that Randian atheism is far less problematic to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck today than it was to the leading thinkers of Reagan-era conservatism.
One need not be on the editorial board of The American Prospect to regard Ayn Rand as the god that failed of the Bush era. I personally see no reason not to regard Alan Greenspan as having been the logical outcome of putting her ideas into practice, not only with respect to the great inflation itself but to the Bush/Rove political motives behind it - both the funding of their wars and of the housing bubble designed to build their permanent exurban majority.
Indeed, a convincing case can be made that the teabaggers, insofar as they have any guiding philosophy, owe more to Rand than anyone, especially when we consider the jingoism of both. And it is not surprising that they seem to have no qualms about the Randian hatred of religion as it becomes increasingly clear that the era of the religious right is over. Six months later, Obama’s Notre Dame speech looks increasingly like the end of America’s abortion wars, as TAC aptly foresaw even earlier.
But of course, that is a heretical notion to the Kossack mob that is The Daily Show studio audience, as illustrated in this desperate attempt to deny it. As ever, the left can not get past its dogmas to have an intelligent understanding of the right, as the right was once able to have of the left.
Filed under: Uncategorized
This is an abominable hit piece on Rand and on free marketers in general. It’s so off the mark intellectually responding fully would be a chore, paralleled in difficulty with teaching an illiterate to read.
Rand’s atheism is subversive, period. Her support of capitalism is certainly not subversive. Even strident anti-Randians, such as Michael Novak, are broadly supportive of free market capitalism. Pope John Paul II was supportive of capitalism, because (presumably) he recognized its superiority to the moral bankruptcy and atheism of the Communist doctrine.
Furthermore, I find it indicative of Mr. Ross’s lazy intellect that he would equate Greenspan to Rand. Ayn Rand, in monetary matters (and economic matters as a whole) was a Misean. A greater opponent to inflationism there never was. Oddly, this blog and its posters have an affinity for Ron Paul, who is a fan of Ayn Rand (and Mises), and detest Rand for the same reasons they profess to like Paul.
Cognitive confusion reigns. Thoughtful policy recommendations, and for that matter, forays into philosophy, do not deserve a lightweight intellectual treatment. Such insouciance leads to sloppy policy and national crisis.
-William
Others are more qualified to rebut this, but let me just make a few quick points:
1) Ron Paul has stated his view that there are definite limits and fallacies in Rand’s work, he makes this very clear in mentioning her on his reading list in The Revolution.
2) John Paul II expressed many criticisms of capitalism, and even once spoke of Marxism’s “kernel of truth”.
3) Anyone at the Mises Institute would punch you in the nose for calling Rand a Misesian.
The LvMI can punch me in the rose, surely. (Although I confess I’m not sure how an institute punches people. As I see it this is an individual action, not a collective one!) But economically, she was, I believe, even a PROFESSED Misean. They had a mutual appreciation of their respective works. Mises sent her a note of approval on Atlas Shrugged. The major difference, philosophically, was the fact that Mises was a Kantian, and Rand an Aristotelian (with a hatred of Kant and his ideas).
How else could Objectivist George Reisman write his treatise, Capitalism, based primarily on Misean ideas?
Of course Mises, Rand, and Paul are not one in the same. But unlike you, I have some concept on where they exists legitimate overlap. Like I said, like teaching an illiterate to read!
Greenspan was never an Austrian in economics. He makes that very plain in his recent book. He also makes it clear that
he doesn’t understand Rand’s political philosophy, if he had he would never have taken the job at the Fed, an institution he claimed to oppose in principle in the 60s. A former close
associate of Rand’s circle once described Greenspan to me as follows, “He can’t speak, he can’t think, he can’t write and
has no values.” So he has nothing to do with Objectivism.
As far atheism goes, just break it up into three syllables, you’ll feel better. The primacy of existence over consciousness. The religious Right has been after Rand for
52 years now since Chambers’ hatchet job in NR. In the meantime Atlas alone has sold about 8 million copies. Give it up, guys, you lost.
“One need not be on the editorial board of The American Prospect to regard Ayn Rand as the god that failed of the Bush era. I personally see no reason not to regard Alan Greenspan as having been the logical outcome of putting her ideas into practice, not only with respect to the great inflation itself but to the Bush/Rove political motives behind it - both the funding of their wars and of the housing bubble designed to build their permanent exurban majority.”
this is so far off the mark as to be comical. one would need not only to be on the editorial board of the american prospect, but also a kossack to misunderstand rand, bush, and greenspan so completely. i am not a defender of a single member of that triumvirate, but lord almighty have you done each of them a dis-service.
William P,
You appear to be devastated to see any criticism of atheist-capitalist extremists. You are shameful, however, to enroll JP II as a supporter of capitalism, in the same league with Rand. In the same logic, I could say Stalin was an opponent of Nazism and so was Ayn Rand. In truth, JP II’s own encyclicals are much closer to the policies and goals of any average 1980s East European economy than to unrestrained capitalism in the objectivist spirit.
Rand was the worst kind of atheist. She was not atheist out of a misplaced moral outrage against some particular church or religion or religionists. She was not an atheist out of mere theological scepticism, but rather she embraced egoism wholeheartedly. Her morality was, therefore, highly evil, compared to which Leninism may even shine as a beacon of relative purity based on the presence of a superego alone. Ron Paul does not embrace her views or those of her followers, even if they might have a broad agreement on monetary policy.
Perhaps the problem is that you yourself are largely a Randian. This might be how you synthesise Austrian economics and support for the War of Terror, as Randians, too, were not principled libertarians, but rather were keen to keep a phantom enemy to target for annihilation.
Michael Hardesty,
The Religious Right may not be so powerful as its human numbers suggest, but Ayn Rand is a wholly peripheral figure, existing in the consciousness of under 5% of the country. Her work is considered a relative gem in the valueless pit of 20th century American literature. Fine. But in my experience, its only influence has been to contribute to teenagers’ childish arrogance and moral decline. Yes, I know she disapproved of drug use and hedonism, but when you combat the spiritual and social realms of humanity, you can expect no better.
And atheism has FOUR SYLLABLES! The final m is syllabic, ‘ism’ is not a single syllable.
You deserve that for your prickish, patronising comment.
Have a nice day
I see it mentioned that Rand thought of herself as an Aristotelian. I must say, I’m not terribly familiar with Rand’s work, but how was she in any way, an Aristotelian?
Her rationalism was completely a product of the enlightenment, as was her egoism and and materialism. I see no trace in Rand of the virtue ethics and focus on community of Aristotle. In fact, I see exactly the opposite. For something approaching a real modern Aristotelian, I would recommend Alasdair MacIntyre.
I’d chalk it up to Rand having been unfamiliar with western philosophy, the only three thinkers she ever seems to mention are Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche every so often. Furthermore, she doesn’t seem to have much of an understanding of even these three philosophers.
Honestly, I’m always a little embarrassed when someone on the right speaks of Rand approvingly, it just makes us seem like intellectually immature arrogant brats with a shallow knowledge of philosophy.
Could somebody find for me this alleged statement of John Paul II’s that “supported capitalism”? I have studied his work for years, but have not come across this secret document.
I stand by my comments. Pope JP2 did support capitalism; Rand was an Aristotelian; and Ron Paul is largely in agreement with her and Mises on matters of economy. Finally, I am not a Randian. It’s a ludicrous suggestion considering I’ve only read one of her books (the Fountainhead) and a few peripheral works.
It helps to remember that I was responding to the original post by Mr. Ross, in which he incredulously lumped the tea partiers as all Randians and claimed Greenspan to be a supporter of unbridled capitalism: this last suggestion is so tragically uninformed, given that he is a Ron Paul supporter, and that Ron Paul could not disagree with Greenspan’s central planning re: our money.
Now you can all devolve this discussion into a perpetual discussion on the relative merits of theism/atheism. As a believer, I’m comfortable with my position. As a supported of classical liberalism, I am comfortable with leaving people to their own devices to improve their lot, largely without the interference of government.
oops… I meant: and that Ron Paul could not disagree MORE with Greenspan’s central planning re: our money.
That Greenspan was not an Austrian economist in practice I think we all will accept without debate. That does not mean that he was not a decadent (ex-)Objectivist who was simply found himself in the centre of the East Coast banking cartel …. uhh, I mean, power elite.
And JP2 is still on another planet from your economics. I might accept myself that he supported the existence of some capitalism, but in your own strict definitions he was clearly not a capitalist.
Certainly did more than support the existence of SOME capitalism. He was a capitalist, broadly speaking. And when you get right down to it, capitalism (whatever you want to call it) is really just allowing people to make their own economic decisions. It’s a basic freedom that anyone besides a totalitarian should support protecting. It fits in perfectly well with the sacred inviolability of one’s thoughts and actions that the Church supports maintaining (assuming, of course, the actions are not blatantly immoral).
If this does not satisfy the rapid Buchanan types steeped in Chestertonian economics, perhaps this will:
http://mises.org/story/3787
“The real founders of economic science actually wrote hundreds of years before Smith. They were not economists as such, but moral theologians, trained in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, and they came to be known as the Late Scholastics. These men, most of whom taught in Spain, were at least as pro–free market as the much-later Scottish tradition.”
The claim that the Scholastics were “proto-Austrians” is sheer nonsense, since they explicitly denied all the major tenets of Austrian economics. See http://distributism.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-trade-and-alternative-history.html
and
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6693
I would have thought surely that William P would document JP2’s supposed solid capitalism. But it seems he cannot, we must take it on *faith*.
Excellent links, Mr Médaille! I hope that they will at least be able to reach some of those “Christian libertarians”, who are overly obsessed with the morality of means.
The school of Salamanca did seem to have some Austrian leanings and this is what every economic historian that I’m aware of has said, so it would be hard to accept the claim that they rejected all Austrian premises on face value. It would also seem incongruous to be both a neoconservative and a proponent of Austrian economics.
Pundits and politicians most often labeled neoconservative don’t really support free trade, a free market, the gold standard, they certainly don’t accept the non-interventionism of the Austrians and they often refer favorably to Keynesian and Chicago School economists like Milton Friedman. combine this with their hatred of Ron Paul and it is hard to see any trace of Austrianism in their beliefs. However, even these figures aren’t true neoconservatives. In fact, the first generation neoconservatives and the more ideologically serious neoconservatives today all call for a social democracy thanks in large part to their past Trotskyism.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t problems with conservatives accepting all Austrian premises, I think the belief that all human interaction is included within the Market and the claim that man acts only out of self-interest particularly are both problematic but there are Austrians favorable to conservatism, Wilhelm Ropke and Hans-Hermann Hoppe for example.
Far be it from me to tell other Catholics what is holy and what is not. I am going on the assumption that if a system accurately describes how the world works, it is therefore true and therefore good. State intervention begets further state intervention, leading unerringly towards unnecessary misery and hardship.
Until I find any reason to disintegrate economic freedom to justify state intervention, I side with Mises in his support for a broadly unhampered economy.
Geez, since when did free market economics get a bad name among Catholics?
Posted on Jose’s blog:
There are no “iron laws” in economics in the sense that they are spelled out by diktat and must be followed. Most definitely not! They merely describe necessary consequences of action, and ARE THEREFORE followed. For example: I am a business owner earning profits of $1 million/year, which equals the business profits after I replenish my capital stock (that is, what allows me to continue running my business). I employ 40 people and pay them collectively $600,000 in wages and benefits. These employees form a union, and demand $650,000. The additional $50k must either come out of my own compensation, or out of the capital stock. If it comes out of the capital stock, slowly my business and the ability for me to employ is eroded. At the very least, I am stymied in my ability to expand. If it comes out of my $1 million salary, I am that much poorer myself and a portion of my purchasing power (1/20) is diverted to my employees in one form or another.
Two things should be apparent:
1) The union can only raise wages so much before I sell (or liquidate) the business - it is worth less to me, and I can always pursue other opportunities.
2) Because I operate in a competitive environment, most of the prices that concern me are established on relatively thin margins. Mucking up my ability, as the owner, to determine how to allocate resources, will almost certainly lead to less business activity, and hence less production for all society to enjoy.
Do such inevitable conclusions constitute “iron laws” in your opinion? Call them what you will. I call it inescapable reality, which we are stuck with until we figure out a way to abolish scarcity.
Furthermore, one may find it appealing to shift the purchasing power from the capitalist to the workers, but clearly this precedent is untenable in the long run.
Distributism, if I understand one aspect of it, would stipulate that my workers share in the ownership of the company and hence have an interest in its success (why they do not have an interest in its success as a mere wage earner, I do not know). But this is to create a workers syndicate, which resembles the Guild. Would anyone here be so foolhardy as to advocate a return to Guilds? I doubt that.
Hahah, err, not Jose, I meant John’s blog. Sorry.
Can I add? I find it telling that these Distributists (whatever you go by) find their time better used attacking the free market than advancing their own system of belief. For all the economic literature I read, I’ve never found a Distributist post a line by line refutation and correction of free market economics. I tend to think it’s because no such opportunity exists.
I am not interested in “refuting” the free market; I am interested in refuting the claim that capitalistic markets are free.
William P., I’ve come to hold, quite firmly, that you are a formidable opponent, generally well versed, and quite confident (maybe sometimes a little too confident) in your views, and though I disagree with you quite frequently (or did, when I was more active, as I still swear I again shall be), I respect you. That said, I want to make two points regarding where I think that you’ve stumbled.
1. I think that John’s last comment is important, one too often overlooked by defenders of the free market: Capitalism and the free market certainly are not mutually inclusive, and whether capitalism is at all free is up for grabs (in part, I note, because of the ambiguity today that surrounds the word “capitalism”). Although Distributists — or at least the originals (e.g., Belloc) — are open to using the State, as risky a proposition as it is, to promote their ends (See Deneen, at Front Porch Republic, “Subsidizing Localism”.), I think that, generally they’d/we’d contend that, ultimately, we do believe in a free market — just not in the same way as soi-disant capitalists do. Mutualists make the same claim, much more explicitly, Kevin Carson’s Weblog’s title being Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism.
You’re certainly free to argue that neither Distributism nor Mutualism represents any sort of free-market economy, but it’s necessary, if only as a matter of semantics (but probably for other reasons, too) to separate “free market” and “capitalism”. To this end, I heartily second the claim that Pope JP2 heralded a free-market economy — but not capitalism.
2. Pace James, I’ll also second your point that Rand was, indeed, a (soi-disant, anyway) Aristotelian. However, qualifying this claim is quite necessary. In metaphysics she was an Aristotelian. However, beyond that, she’s decidedly a modern (or something to that effect), a child of the Enlightenment whose individualist anthropology certain distances her from Aristotle’s man-is-by-nature-a-social animal communitarian understand of man.
Cheers,
NPO
Ah Nathan! Now my day is complete! And on 7:56pm on a Friday, that’s a pretty sad thing to say!
Before I write anything, how can I not respond to this comment - your parenthetical “maybe sometimes a little too confident.” Anyone who is proved wrong after insisting he was right is in one sense overly confident. I try to maintain a sense of proportion, and honestly when wrong. I’m sure I fail at this from time to time.
To a certain extent, my arguments for a free market economy and the other challenges for a third way, Distributism or some form of economic, potentially state-enforced communitariantarian are talking right past each other. I’ll attempt to explain what I mean, and maybe now I understand why people have a difficult time accepting morally the advocacy of a free market economy.
[As far as semantics go, I usually apply the terms capitalism and free market economy interchangeably. There exist ontological (and etymological, of course) differences that conceivably justify semantic bifurcation, but one strives for a level of brevity higher in online blogging than in, say, in writing a dissertation.]
It is explainable after examining two analytical aspects - law and morality - and summarized very briefly by stating that while I support using the law in enforcing punishment for certain kinds of moral transgressions, once this enforcement begins to significantly impinge on economic prosperity, and assuming that it is not in place to safeguard the society from imminent danger, I give precedence to economic freedom, deriving as such from private property rights. (I am not going to attempt to derive private property rights at the moment, but I don’t think people here have a problem with them, per se. I will hence assume there is broad respect for private property rights; to what degree that is interpreted does not matter so much for this discussion, assuming the reader is inclined to be generally supportive.)
When beginning my analysis of law, I always start from the standpoint of anarchy (or absence of law) and decide if dictates or prohibitions are advisable to solve the question at hand, if indeed they are likely to be effective. To do this, alternatives must be considered.
Case in point: I believe believe kidnapping is a bad thing for reasons x, y, and z. I believe we should make kidnapping illegal, and put perpetrators behind bars for many years if found guilty of said crime. I cannot see a downside to this policy, excepting the certain number of tragic cases that are wrongly decided. The alternative, keeping kidnapping legal and/or not punishing kidnappers has, in my mind, no possible justification. We have described here a clear imperative for law.
The above example enjoys an estimate 99.999% popularity. It is black and white, open and shut, clearly civilized; its opposite, barbarous. Yet consider another example: protective tariffs. Tariffs will save some American jobs in industries they protect. They will also lead to less wealth for everybody else, because they prevent certain trades from occurring. Trade being mutually beneficial, this must be regarded as a negative consequence. I would look at this problem from the perspective of privilege. Why should I, as an accountant, as a writer, as an employee of an automobile factory, subsidize my neighbor, a farmer? What right does the farmer have that I do not? Having decided that farmers have no more rights than anyone else, even say, Wall Street executives, I conclude both should operate under the same set of economic freedoms. Unfortunately, many people do not look at it this way. They look at the potential jobs lost, and notice the calculation of per capita contribution to maintain these jobs is extremely small, and side with the protective measures. What they rarely consider is the effects in totality of an endless number of these policies.
This is where the confusion sets in. It’s a matter of degree, and prudence, really. And to a lesser extent, it probably has something to do with my reluctance to enforce cultural norms.
I agree that, morally speaking, close knit families and communities are ideal. They are typically found among culturally homogeneous peoples. Some may find this a contentious statement, but history suggests that the notion contains a fair bit of truth. America was founded as a culturally tolerant society, a prerequisite for liberty. Religious liberty was chief among our freedoms. (It is oddly overlooked how different strains of even the same religion experience tension - Catholicism, for example, has traditions that are more spiritual and others that are more philosophical. It is what keeps it an evolving body of thought and not stagnant.) While recognizing this principle - that conformity to a narrow range of social norms is what allows for a very close community - I also recognize that people need not mandate these norms to live peacefully. They can cooperate productively and not share together in a religious tradition. To begin enforcing cultural norms through punishment would break down this social division of labor. For this reason, many cultural issues are beyond the scope of advisable lawmaking. Having said this, allow me to qualify that some cultural norms - the privilege afforded to married couples, the rights of the unborn, a respectful pop culture that maintains the basic dignity of the human being - have proved through history to be wise council to maintaining a healthy society.
It may be true and it may not be true that in a free society people choose brotherly love over exploitation when working economize resources. This is a choice for individuals to make on a daily basis. I merely suggest leaving these choices up to the individual, and between her and her God, once sound ground rules have been established that serve to protect economic freedom.
In times of crisis, the preservation of these freedoms is more important than ever. I look at it this way: societies have a tendency for moral rot that eventually corrupts it institutions, particularly those in government. Moral rots seems to set in after great disillusionment, or, after the browbeating of certain classes/groups by an aspiring tyrant or party. It is then that the people being to demand oppression by their own government, externalizing and projecting their guilt vicariously on “society,” which demands increased “punishment,” in the form of interventions and regulations, from government. Once the tyranny begins, it rarely, and then only grudgingly, recedes. The prominent side effect of tyranny is its characteristic anti-social effects. It beings a positive feedback cycle that is difficult to break. In summary, you have something along the lines of this on a societal scale: 1) guilty conscience, 2) inability to admit guilt, 3) crisis in confidence, 4) demands for tyrant to fix nation, 5) laws that contribute further to the breakdown in the social order, 6) further controls, leading to more demands for the tyrant, etc., and after some iteration of steps 4, 5 and 6, revolution. And this is where the study of economics must be understood.
In order to break the cycle and improve conditions, which should lead back to confidence - and, recognizing that a healthy self conception is a necessary component to process of catharsis - we must preserve the economic freedoms that make prosperity through social cooperation necessary. Only then will we begin to reform our more decadent ways.
Anticipating a criticism, let me say that the market is not an impersonal concept at all, for to be successful you must serve the demands of your fellow man, and also treat those you engage with respect. To this extent, it fosters common concern among men. Is it perfect, in that does it naturally promote all Christian values? Not always, but, going back to the alternative, the use of law to wring out all human imperfection, we can use economics and history to recognize that this choice has led to grave abuses of power, tumult, and, suffering, societal decline, and eventually collapse.
In summary, I believe that a free market is a necessary component of any society. It does nothing to impinge on human dignity. Instead of being born by a fatally flawed system, all sin is committed personally by immoral actors, to whose sinful actions we punish through abstention of purchases. The application of law being imprudent to solving problems of this nature, we must accept as sufficient market forces.
(That’s all for now. I’m going to re-read it later and find a bunch of things that I wish were different. Oh well.)
2 corrections:
“we must preserve the economic freedoms that make prosperity through social cooperation necessary.”
This makes more sense if it were to read:
“we must preserve the economic freedoms, derived from private property rights and utilized for production through social cooperation, possible.”
“This is a choice for individuals to make on a daily basis. I merely suggest leaving these choices up to the individual, and between her and her God, once sound ground rules have been established that serve to protect economic freedom.”
This would be more concise if, instead of “economic freedom” it read “private property rights.”
William P,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the government enforce moral values on individuals. Instead, the point being made is that capitalism is, at times, directly opposed to the independence and strength of the family and community. This isn’t to say that the same isn’t also true for government, but libertarians often overlook the fact that large corporations can be just as destructive as government. Perhaps, rather than talk of statists and anti-statists, we should talk of centralists and decentralists.
As for Rand, I must admit that I’m not so familiar with her work as to comment authoritatively on her metaphysics, but she has always struck me as being a fervent materialist as opposed to Aristotle who, while certainly moderate when compared to Plato, wasn’t a materialist.