With Ron Paul making headlines this polticial season, there seems to be some renewed interest in libertarian politics in the past few months. And with BioShock taking the game world by storm there’s some renewed interest in Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. So it seems like a good time to write a little about the relationship between Libertarianism and Objectivism.
When people first learn about Objectivism or libertarianism, they make the pretty logical assumption that the two would go hand in hand. After all, both espouse a radical free market, pro individual rights philosophy that’s a pretty far cry from either the Republican or Democratic party. Even BioShock creator Ken Levine mentioned this in his email exchange with Andrew Russell on The Objectivist Center’s message board…
Levine said
My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians.
Here’s Andrew’s response; I think it’s a pretty good one
Rand’s own dislike of the libertarian movement was due to the fact she considered libertarians to be indifferent to philosophy. They want their liberty but they refuse to acknowlege the fact that you have to justify liberty. Rand also despised the anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard that were instrumental in the founding of modern libertarianism (or more correctly, the revival of Classical Liberalism (which Im sure you know was the original name of Libertarianism before the American Left hijacked it)). I think Rand was awfully judgmental in this instance, and the fact is that liberty can be justified by many different philosophies. Robert Nozick uses Kantianism (Kant being, according to Rand, the “most evil man in history”(!)), the Classical Liberals used Empiricism and Utilitarianism, some use Christianity, indeed libertarianism is a broad Church. Rand just was not fond of people that disagreed with her, even on the slightest details.
This is not a good attitude obviously, and The Objectivist Center goes a long way towards ending the stifling intellectual isolationism Rand and the orthodox Objectivists practice.
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming - The Atlas Society Forums
Russell sums up the anti-libertarian argument from the Orthodox objectivist side well but I think he’s actually being too kind. In part two, I’ll unpack the Objectivist argument but for right now let me present a counter position;Ayn Rand was a monstrous, disgusting plagiarist who stole the ideas of people like John Locke, Ludwig Von Mises, and F.A. Hayek - twisting their arguments to her own needs when it suited her and ignoring the parts that didn’t serve her purpose.
I’m sure you’ll agree that this is a clear, logical argument and I look forward to expounding on it in Part 2.
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I’m not sure in what sense you mean you have a “clear, logical” argument because it is widely known that Ayn Rand was one of the three founders of the modern libertarian movement–although she eschewed this dubious honor. Isabel Patterson and Rose Wilder Lane are credited as the other two.
Indeed, the entire libertarian political philosophy is based on Rand’s theories, particularly her political maxim that force must never be initiated but only used in retaliation. Rand despised the libertarians because their borrowed her political and economic theories without bothering to acknowledge the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of these theories, without which they were merely arbitrary maxims that were indefensible and foundationalist.
Like how scientists have no agreement with alchemists or creationists on the methods they adopt to arrive at a conclusion–even if the conclusion they all arrive at happens to be the same–Ayn Rand’s Objectivism can have no agreement with libertarians in their method of doing philosophy and arguing ideas even though some libertarians may have arrived the same conclusion. Note however that libertarianism is an all-encompassing church that includes anarcho-libertarians like Rothbard and Socialist libertarians. Just as in science, you cannot allow psuedo-scientific approaches even if they may perchance happen to have the right conclusion, Objectivism excludes such radically opposing viewpoints even if they claim to have common goals.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Thanks for your comment…
Do you really beleive that Ayn Rand came up with the idea that it’s wrong to initiate force? That was her orginal idea? You believe that before Ayn Rand, everyone thought you could just punch people in the nose and steal their biscuits?
You assert that ‘the entire libertarian philosophy’ is based on Rand’s theories but you are ignoring the work of Jefferson, Locke, Von Mises, Prodhoun, Hayek, Adam Smith, and many others whose work came before Ayn Rand - not to mention the thinkers and theorists whose work came after.
This is why I said that Ayn Rand is the dangerous, plagarist monster - she and her followers want to give her all of the credit. All of it. You didn’t say ‘Ayn was one of the people who made a lot of people aware of libertarian ideas’ - a totally factual statement - you said ‘the entire libertarian philosophy is based on Ayn Rand’. That’s overreaching to point of being a self-serving lie on the part of Rand and her followers.
I’ll talk about your second point in part 2 (or 3, maybe - I am trying to write in smaller chunks)…
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Lee,
The maxim that one must not initiate force may have been known to some/many people throughout history. That’s not the point. The point is political libertarianism is based on this maxim, and this maxim was identified by Ayn Rand as a logical derivative of her unique defense of rights and liberty. Her conception of rights–as accepted by libertarians–is not propounded by any other classical liberal philosopher, including Locke.
Incidentally, I think you are either confused or not knowledgeable about the chronological order in which the thinkers you mentioned stand in relation to Rand.
In any case, if you only took some effort to do your research before you began writing on things of which you have little knowledge, the calibre of your posts might improve significantly.
For starters, read Brian Doherty’s “Radicals for Capitalism” (which is a phrase that Ayn Rand used to describe her political position) in which Doherty explicitly states about libertarianism “It all starts with Ayn Rand.”
And that’s just one source. Do some more background research on modern libertarian philosophy and see who is cited as the founder of the philosophy–Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Well, let’s look at the point you said I’m confused by - the chronological order of the people I mentioned in relationship to Ayn Rand. Point out the one that came after…Jefferson, Locke, Von Mises, Prodhoun, Hayek, Adam Smith
They are preceded Rand’s writing on politics and economics.
This is from an Amazon review of the book you mention “Brian Doherty, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, has written a very long and informative history of the libertarian movement. He focuses, in the first part of his book, on five key thinkers who kept the movement alive during the era of big government - an era which we are still in. Those five were Ludwig von Mises and Freidrich Hayek of the Austrian school of economics, novelist and philospher Ayn Rand, philosopher Murry Rothbard, and economist Milton Friedman. ”
I mentioned von Mises and Hayek because they preceded Rand.
So, your pithy little comment about about me writing about things I have little knowledge about is worse than baseless - it’s also incorrect on facts.
And again - I’m not disputing Rand was a key popularizer of what we now call libertarian ideas. She was. But it’s cultish lie for you to state that the entire libertarian philosophy is based on her ideas. No, it isn’t - otherwise the book Radicals For Capitalism you mentioned would be solely about Ayn Rand. I haven’t read the book, but I know the history - and some of it firsthand, since I worked with Leonard Peikoff, went to an Objectivist high school, lived with Andy Bernstein and so on.
So without having read Doherty’s book, I will go by the reviews and synopsis - here’s another…
“Every movement deserves its 700 page history and Brian Doherty has written an outstanding one for the libertarian movement. He focuses on five seminal libertarian thinkers, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman, but certainly doesn’t ignore the other people who have made the movement so colorful. The book is consistently enlightening and provides biographical details of its major players that I didn’t know. And, contrary to those who would rewrite history, Doherty makes it clear that Rand’s “Objectivist” movement left a trail of broken lives in its wake, not the least of which was Rand’s. ”
Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of Rand or frankly of anything that you’re claiming…
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Okay, I suppose all of history is wrong and you are right, since not once did you mention that either Isabel Paterson or Rose Wilder Lane were among the founding mothers of libertarianism.
Lee, you need to face the facts simply. Jefferson and Locke were classical liberals–different from the modern libertarian movement that is the topic of this discussion, in which case Ayn Rand is one of the three founders of this outgrowth of a philosophy. von Mises and Hayek were primarily Austrian *economists*, whose theories came in neat harmony with libertarian philosophy, but don’t confuse economics with the overarching philosophy. Libertarianism begins with the anti-force and liberty premise; Austrian economics is perfectly consonant with these premises and hence it falls under the same umbrella of libertarianism. You cannot properly claim that the Austrian economists were the *founders* of the philosophy, though you could agree that they were the propounders and popularizers of the philosophy through their economic theories.
*sigh*. Your arguments are all heat and no critical substance. I’m gonna leave you alone to rant here now. This is my last comment. Good premises!
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I didn’t mention Rose Lane Wilder or Patterson because 1) you did, 2) the book you mentioned “Radicals For Capitalism’ mentions five people as the main focus and Wilder / Patterson aren’t among them (even though I know they are featured in the book) but most importantly…
It disproves your own point. You stated that all of libertarian thought owes itself to Ayn Rand - so where do Wilder and Patterson fit in that equation?
Either you’re correct and it all sprung from Rand, in which case Wilder and Patterson aren’t relevant. Or you’re wrong and libertarianism has a number of different influences for it’s political philosophy - in which case Rose and Wilder are among those influences, certainly although not as important as von Mises or Hayek.
You’re clearly underestimating the Austrians (and everyone else) just to try to salvage your absurd overstatement of Rand’s importance. But I understand why you’re doing - as I point out in Part 2, you’re just parroting back Ayn Rand’s own words.
It was a lie when she said it, of course, but at least I understand the needy psychology behind her trying to take credit for everything. I don’t understand why you’d do it, too.
And running away from an argument after trying to get in the last word is poor form.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
You mean not agreeing with you is poor form. He isn’t running away from the argument, he is dissolving it after discovering that you aren’t worth arguing with.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:47 am
So, you’re agreeing that “the entire libertarian political philosophy is based on Rand’s theories”?