Defense of Liberty. Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Gifts of Speech, Sweet Briar College ^ | March 6, 1974 | Ayn Rand

[annalex]

At #42 in Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff Clinton's a rapist reminded us of this speech by Ayn Rand, remarkable for her full-throated defense of the US military, "the army of the last semi-free country left on earth".

This Free Republic publication serves another purpose. Much in the libertarians' reaction to the Twin Towers massacre was rooted not in libertarian principles of just defense, but in anarchist emotionalism. Some of it stemmed from the opposition to clintonesque military adventurism, other -- from the universally and unthinkingly accepted condemnation of colonialism and imperialism -- the discarded foreign policy principles that in the light of the third world experiences in the past several decades deserve another look.

The previous threads on American "Imperialism" (whether or not you agree with the term) are:

Defense of Liberty
Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory
Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff
Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention

[annalex]

The Cadet color guard parades on the plain at West Point

[First_Salute]

Noted:

"When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror."

[sawsalimb]

Thanks-bookmarked for later reading.

[UbIwerks]

FYI I read this years ago from Peikoff's collection of Ayn Rand articles entitled Philosophy, Who needs it?

[First_Salute]

For your dad and you:

"There may be individuals in your history who did not live up to your highest standards--as there are in every institution--since no institutions and no social system can guarantee the automatic perfection of all its members; this depends on an individual's free will. I am speaking of your standards. You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually nonexistent today: earnestness--dedication--a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.

...the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it.

The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest--as the armies of other countries have done in their histories--only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have."

[Clinton's a rapist]

Thank you for posting Ayn Rand's magnificent West Point address.

[ChemistCat]

*

[PatrickHenry]

My usual bump, with essential links for anyone interested in liberty:

A TREASURY OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS . The ultimate source of history links.
A Chronology of US Historical Documents.
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School, more historic documents.
Laissez Faire Books.
Ayn Rand Bookstore. (formerly Second Renaissance Books)
Reason Foundation.
Ayn Rand Institute.
Religion and the Founding Fathers
Religion vs. Morality, from the Ayn Rand Institute.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To
Read
Later

[A.J.Armitage]

Thanks.

[A.J.Armitage]

She doesn't mean science in exactly the way it's used now. She used it in the same way that scholars in the Middle Ages called theology the queen of the sciences(a sentiment she obviously didn't share). The threat from bin Laden and others like his isn't conquest, it's destruction.

[x]

The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such. I have, however, been speaking implicitly of my philosophy in every sentence--since none of us and no statement can escape from philosophical premises.

There certainly is praise for philosophy as such in her speech, and advocacy of her own position, but she seems to be keeping philosophical arguments for her position to a minimum here. It is hard, though, to say just what a "philosophical argument" is. Saying, "Kant's philosophy is for the flawed the feelbe the suffering and the guilty," would not in itself be a philosophical argument, but an emotional appeal, though there may be a philosophical argument implied or suggested in Kant's appeal to such people (if it is true that he does have a special appeal to them).

One thing that distinguishes Rand from libertarians is where she's from. Having lived under Communism, she was not likely to see America as an oppressive force in the way that many American-born libertarians are. She was perhaps less ideologically consistent, but more realistic in this regard. There's nothing wrong with her view, but the way that she keeps beating the drum of ideological purity seems inconsistent with the necessary compromise that she's made with reality.

Woodrow Wilson and his generation of liberals, under the influence of Rand's hated Kant and Hegel, started with the value of the individual and ended up embracing collectivism. For all her bluster, Rand does something of the same thing on a smaller scale. I'm not going to condemn her for that. Collective defense -- the idea that an attack on my neighbor by a foreign power is also an attack on me -- is an important idea and at the foundation of our civilization, but accepting this idea leads one away from Rand's more strident formulation of individualism.

Collective defense shouldn't be pushed too far in the direction of more thoroughgoing and comprehensive collectivism, but its necessity and Rand's acceptance of it indicate that her model of creative artists persecuted by the stupid and brutal collectivist mob only describes a part of human life. I suppose you can integrate this all together -- the creative artist in WWII had to join the common effort to preserve the possibility of individuality and human freedom -- but the more you take into account, the less convincing some of Rand's more dogmatic views look.

[tpaine]

"This Free Republic publication serves another purpose. Much in the libertarians' reaction to the Twin Towers massacre was rooted not in libertarian principles of just defense, but in anarchist emotionalism. Some of it stemmed from the opposition to clintonesque military adventurism, other -- from the universally and unthinkingly accepted condemnation of colonialism and imperialism -- the discarded foreign policy principles that in the light of the third world experiences in the past several decades deserve another look."

====================================

Hmmmm, mind if I ask for sources on where and/or why you have formed the opinion that libertarians in general have had an 'emotional, anarchist' reaction to 9/11?

Sounds as if this could be an over-emotional reaction on your own part, I would say.

[snowflake]

First read her books and non-fiction 40 years ago. Time to read again for this stage of my life. Thank you for posting this.

[A.J.Armitage]

That most certainly wasn't science.

It wasn't guys in lab coats testing falsifiable hypotheses, but it was learning, and that's what they meant by "science".

There was a time when music was too refined to be plagued by such things as the ugly noises or strings and horns. Horns especially.

I take you had such an irrepressable need to say that you just couldn't help but type it out.

The real threat of destruction from Bin Laden is in our minds and beliefs.

No, it's from blowing things up, crashing airplanes, anthrax, other biological weapons, suitcase nukes, ect.

You see, bin Laden can't destroy "our" belief that war is a bad thing because "we" have no such belief. You do. The rest of us think war is a fine thing, if you do it right. I thought that before any of this happened, in spite of my generally isolationist foreign policy preferences.

[John Deere]

Thank you for the article. Rand makes some excellent points regarding the philosophical progression necessary to arrive at a solid ethical and political set of principles.

> Much in the libertarians' reaction to the Twin Towers massacre was rooted not in libertarian principles of just defense, but in anarchist emotionalism.

I happen to disagree. For all her discussion about principles, Ayn Rand seems all too ready to sacrifice them to convenience. Isn't she the one that holds as one of her basic principles the non-initiation of force? And how does she suppose our current foreign policy is funded if not by initiating force against the citizens of the U.S.?

I don't believe you will find many libertarians who are opposed to self-defense. In fact, most libertarians I have heard on the subject, strongly support defending ourselves against attack. Which in no way takes away from the absolute fact that we are largely in our current situation because of the fact that our government first initiated force against us.

And that is at the root of the flaw in Rand's argument. As it stands, many drum-beating libertarians seem to hold an attitude that says: "We are completely against initiation of force and hold it to be immoral . . . but thank goodness we did, or we wouldn't have the armed forces that we do now. Which are necessary to fight this scourge."

The libertarians you criticize, are not guilty of anything, other than holding to their principles. If they are to be criticized, then perhaps it is their principles that should be attacked. Do you feel that our current foreign policy (with its major component of corporate welfare) would be possible without a previous initiation of force against Americans by our own government?

It's fine and dandy to claim that we are NOT Imperialists, etc., etc. The question is, how would the U.S. project its power in the manner that it does (funding of Israel, embargoes against Iraq, hell, even the suitcases of cash that Gen. Scwarzkopf took with him to Iran in 1953) if it wasn't for a fundamental violation of libertarian principles?

[Lysander]

Much in the libertarians' reaction to the Twin Towers massacre was rooted not in libertarian principles of just defense, but in anarchist emotionalism.

Come on, I know you can do better than this. This is as untrue for me as it is for most of my fellow party memebers. Emotional reaction is most evident in the "revenge as justice" attitude held by 90% of the sheeple. That type of emotionalism gives good feelings over desired results. It is what liberals in both parties count on for their power base.