Mysticism of the Market: Why All Wise Libertarians Should Reject Ayn Rand

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 6/28/2006 | Editorial

[tang0r]

Libertarianism is not thought of well in the minds of the public. Among the notably small percentage of them that have even heard of it (that is, heard enough to form an opinion on it), a prevailing view among them is it’s basically a quasi-anarchist, uber-capitalist homily to Ayn Rand.

[aynrandfreak]

The Libertarians lost me when they had to debate whether to agree on us going to Afghanistan.

[AZLiberty]

Rand's books -- and discussions with a fellow Caltech grad student named John Dentinger -- transformed me from a leftist Canadian into a libertarian individualist.

Life's experience has made it clear, however, that the individual is not the only entity worthy of recognition. Just as biological life can usefully described at many levels, from quantum mechanics through physics, chemistry, tissues, organs, bodies, populations, ecosystems, and beyond, so can sociological life. Yes, many important things happen at the level of individuals, but many other important things happen at the level of families, organizations (non-profit and for-profit), governments (local, state, national, and supranational), "movements", and so on. As in the physical world, much analytic power comes from dealing with phenomena at the appropriate level -- and it's not just at the level of the individual.

This is where libertarians went off course with the "War on Terror". Wars happen, sometimes they're even necessary, and to win them requires resources and commitment (and hence leadership and followership) at levels well beyond the individual. The War on Terror is not a war of individuals but of civilizations.

[el_texicano]

A note to review this later....looks interesting

[DesScorp]

"...a prevailing view among them is it’s basically a quasi-anarchist, uber-capitalist homily to Ayn Rand."

Couldn't have said it better myself. When your only value is money, you're as bad as the Democrats. They consistently deny any social or moral responsibilities other than freedom to profit. Ever see Star Trek: TNG? Libertarians are the Ferengi of politics.

[Taliesan]

Materialists argue that only atoms exist (or pick your particle, or set of particles). Randians seem to argue that only individuals exist.

Reductionism is a preference, not a conclusion. It has its roots in temperament, not logic.

[William Tell]

AZLiberty said: "Wars happen, sometimes they're even necessary, and to win them requires resources and commitment (and hence leadership and followership) at levels well beyond the individual. "

I like your inclusion of "followership". I brought this up many times in my working career and people looked at me like I had grown a second head. Our company was populated with highly intelligent, highly motivated, ambitious people. Many times when things went wrong, they failed to recognize that what they termed "lack of leadership" was instead a lack of followership. They deluded themselves into believing that the organization lacked some ideal charismatic figure who would unerringly take the organization in the right direction.

The reality was often that these highly capable people insisted on pursuing their individual ideas of what constituted the "right" answer. As a result, people were seldom working toward the same goals.

[Mogollon]

Didn't know there was any wise libertarians.

[Sam Gamgee]

Rand was instrumental to introducing me to the moral superiority over collectivism. That's where I disagree with this article. It is a moral system of conduct to voluntarily trade one's goods or labor with another. I also dispute the contention that markets fail.

After disputing with many Libertarians I have concluded that most of the movement is little more than anarchism. They lack a moral guideline. And most come right out of Michael Moore's school of "It's all Bush's fault". As long as US troops reside anywhere other than US soil they regard the US as the aggressor. Most regard the war on terror as fictitious.

So what happens when we share their belief in free markets without government interventionism? Classical liberals?

[ArrogantBustard]

what they termed "lack of leadership" was instead a lack of followership.

It's amazing what you can get done, if you don't care who gets credit for it.

[Richard Kimball]

Great article. Thanks.

[Richard Kimball]

The market is amoral. Earlier tonight, there was a thread about people paying women to carry fetuses to 12 weeks, then aborting them to do stem cell injections as beauty treatments for rich people. There is a huge market for child pornography, drugs, and slaves to be used for sex or labor. The fact that a market exists for something doesn't make it moral.

Many people think when I make that argument that I'm arguing against a free market. I believe that capitalism is the best opportunity for people to be free in their persons and their property, but ONLY if those engaging in capitalism have a moral code that comes from Jesus Christ. The concept that Rand taught with her objectivism was deeply flawed, mostly because she assumed that people working in their own self-interests were automatically working for everyone's self-interest. Her own book undercut her, as Hank Rearden's family of parasites were working for their self-interests, which they fulfilled by attaching themselves to Rearden like seed tics.

[tpaine]

"--- PI is a purveyor of a ground-breaking libertarianism. It uniquely and passionately supports strong and effective regulation, taxation, and state oversight.
Gone from our writing is the old-fashioned libertarian anti-statism that held that all state intervention is inherently evil. --"

Rational libertarians support the basic principles of the US Constitution as written. -- Nothing in those constitutional principles is "anti-statist", nor do libertarians see them as 'evil'.

The author is making a strange attack on libertarianism, instead of supporting it.

[Sam Gamgee]

I think perhaps I am starting to understand the amoral concept. That is a great example from Atlas shrugged. Still, didn't Adam Smith argue that by seeking our financial needs freely we also advance the wealth of the nation? Perhaps he didn't see that as self-interest? After all we all have to live - and that requires money.

Trade is an act of cooperation, not coercion. Would it be correct at least to describe collectivism as immoral, since as Rand put it, it involves the looting of the productivity of others?

[Sam Gamgee]

I also share your moral code in Jesus Christ. Which is why I think many Libertarians end up down the path of anarchism. Learning about the Scottish Enlightenment was a real eye opener for me. They distinguished themselves from the morally lost French version and proved that a Christian moral code was completely compatible with a free market society.

[Sam Gamgee]

Glad to meet a rational libertarian. Have you heard of anarcho-capitalists? The ones I have discoursed with insist that they are the true libertarians. In there world there would be no government and no military.

[freestyle]

"Yes, many important things happen at the level of individuals, but many other important things happen at the level of families, organizations (non-profit and for-profit), governments (local, state, national, and supranational), "movements", and so on."

That is not a coherent statement. Try to define what you mean by "important things [happening]" at the level of, say, a non-profit organization without acknowledging the necessary actions and production initiated by individuals and the individual efforts of specific people that make up "organization". Now think about what should be the method of inducing those individuals to act within those organizations. (You have two choices btw, free will or force).

You should check out Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

Quote:
If capitalism is to be understood, it is this tribal premise that has to be checked -- and challenged.
Mankind is not an entity, an organism, or a coral bush. The entity involved in production and trade is man. It is with the study of man -- not the loose aggregate known as a "community" -- that any science of the humanities has to begin.
-Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (page 15)

[AZLiberty]

You might as well say that everything in physics happens at the level of atoms. In a way it's true, but it's also useful to study and understand the behavior of atomic gases, liquids, and solids; molecules; materials; engineered objects; cells; tissues; organs; animals; societies of animals; ecosystems; stars; planetary systems; galaxies; galactic clusters; and the universe.

There is interesting behavior at each level.

I accept your premise that the science of the humanities begins with the study of individual people. But it doesn't end there.