Libertarianism and Objectivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
| Part of the series on |
 |
|
Schools of thought
Origins
Ideas
Topics
Related
|
| Part of a series on Objectivism |
|
Overview Principles Further Reading Special Topics Groups |
Many individuals found their support of libertarianism upon ideological elements derived from the philosophy of novelist Ayn Rand, which she called Objectivism.[citation needed] Some libertarians who derive their beliefs from economic reasoning acknowledge various insights of Objectivism, even when not deriving their libertarianism from Objectivism. Many influential figures in the libertarian movement, such as L. Neil Smith, acknowledge a debt to Objectivism.[citation needed] In addition, the fiction of Ayn Rand is popular among even libertarians who do not consider themselves to be Objectivists.[citation needed] Therefore, it is perhaps surprising to some that the compatibility of Objectivism and libertarianism is a hotly contested matter.[citation needed]
Contents |
[edit] Ayn Rand's philosophy: Objectivism
Beginning with such novels as We the Living (1936), The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), novelist Ayn Rand communicated to her readers a philosophy she called Objectivism. Objectivism is an integrated system, addressing issues in the five main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.
Rand defined capitalism as the separation of economics and state. Capitalism, she said, was the only social system compatible with man's nature as a rational being.
Objectivism rejects the possibility of a God (or any supernatural events) existing in the universe on metaphysical grounds, whereas libertarianism does not address any metaphysical questions, which allows theists to be libertarians but not Objectivists.
[edit] Rothbard's new libertarianism, and its diversification
Libertarianism is a term coined in the 1800s by the anarchist Joseph Déjacque, and many anarchists continue to use the term to this day. However, the term was used throughout the 19th century by individuals who may or may not have been anarchists.[citation needed]
Murray Rothbard's libertarianism did not adopt Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. However, Rothbard did borrow, from Rand's political ideology, what Rand called the non-aggression principle: the idea that coercive physical force is never to be initiated, and that it should only be used defensively. Rothbard, and the pro-capitalist libertarians (such as Walter Block) who followed his lead, took the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is the necessary precondition of all virtuous conduct. For this reason, unlike Objectivists, libertarians refer to the non-aggression principle as the non-aggression "axiom".
The libertarian movement continued to diversify. Today it includes both anarchists and minarchists (i.e., those who are not anarchistic, but who believe in a minimalistic role for government).[citation needed] However, the movement continues to regard its non-aggression axiom as the linchpin of libertarianism.
[edit] Rand's condemnation of libertarianism
Rand was never a member of the libertarian movement. To the contrary, Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both liberalism and conservativism[1]. Rand said of libertarians that "They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."[1]
Rothbard (whose brief personal friendship with Rand ended in acrimony), in turn, wrote The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, which concluded:
The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[2]
Psychologist Nathaniel Branden, who for a considerable period was Ayn Rand's lover and one of her closest associates until they had a falling out, has claimed that Rand "...did not realize that the majority of people who called themselves 'libertarians' were advocates not of anarchism but of constitutionally limited government (in essence, the Objectivist model)... In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as 'a libertarian philosopher.' Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it."[3]
[edit] Rand's reasons for condemning libertarianism
Ayn Rand saw libertarians as plagiarists of her ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them,"[1] attempting to achieve social goals without first establishing their requisite philosophy-based cultural foundations. Objectivism regards government as necessary to safeguard individual rights by "placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control."[4] Thus Objectivists see the Anarchist wing of Libertarianism as an essentially collectivist, anti-individualist movement that seeks to eliminate objectively justified government-enforced restraints on the violation of the rights of individuals by their families, communities, and whatever organizations might be formed in place of government in an anarchist society.
Ayn Rand explained her reasons for condemning libertarianism as follows:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.[5]
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.[6]
[edit] Objectivism: Closed anti-libertarian system or open pro-libertarian system?
At the risk of oversimplifying, it can today be observed that views on libertarianism's compatibility with Objectivism differ between those who view Objectivism as a closed ideological system, and those who view it as an open one.
Some Objectivists, who argue that Objectivism is a closed philosophical system — i.e., that variations on Rand's ideology are not properly called Objectivism — follow Rand's lead and continue to reject libertarianism.[citation needed] This stance is most clearly identified with Peter Schwartz, Leonard Peikoff, and the Ayn Rand Institute. One of this group's most thoroughly-explained condemnations of libertarianism was provided by Schwartz in his essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" (which appears as a condensed article in Rand's book The Voice of Reason).
Neo-objectivists, who have argued that Objectivism is an open system have diverged from Rand with respect to libertarianism. They have been willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who was expelled from the Ayn Rand Institute because of his views on Objectivism and because of his willingness to sanction libertarianism), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel's former wife) and several New Zealand-based libertarians. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between his philosophy and the libertarian movement. Nathaniel Branden has approved of Kelley's efforts, quoting from a Talmudic passage: "A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy."
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ a b c "Ayn Rand’s Q & A on Libertarianism", Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard
- ^ Objectivism and Libertarianism
- ^ Rand, Ayn, "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 144 (paperback p. 107)
- ^ Rand, Ayn. "What Can One Do?" Philosophy: Who Needs It
- ^ Rand, Ayn. "Brief Summary," The Objectivist, September 1971
