The Vindication of Ayn Rand

Regarding altruism, we've been able to agree that acts of genuine kindness exist and are praiseworthy. From that it follows that at least some ways of practicing altruism are also in existence and praiseworthy. altruism is nothing more than systematic kindness, is it not?

Regarding eclectic ethics, you are right that in America today many and maybe most would not consciously trace their morals to Christianity. But few behaviors contradicting the Christian ethics are viewed as ethical (much more are practiced as an ethical weakness, e.g. various transgressions from the Christian marital code of ethics). Historically, the cultural makeup of today's Americans has been shaped almost exclusively by Protestant ethics of the First and Second Spiritual Awakenings, that gave America its Revolution and its Civil War. If religion were not pushed from the public view by the secularist minority, we'd have more recognition of the Christian roots of common ethics.

Rand, however, is outside of the pale of Christian ethics, primarily because of the issue of kindness that we've been discussing. So I'd say that while an American who is unaware of Rand may be equally unaware of historical Christianity, his ethics are of Christian roots; and an American sympathetic to Rand's ethical teaching would have to reconcile the traditional ethics with Rand's and would come up with an eclectic system.

Generally speaking I agree that acts of "genuine kindness" exist, but I do not agree with all the implications that may be conjured up out of the word "genuine." I also usually agree that kindness is praiseworthy, but not always. But I say that their are also contradictory forms of kindness applyable to peculiar circumstances, such as where two kind persons may very well accuse the each other of being unkind and doing more harm than good in the name of kindness.

Altruism, has all the above simple problems that kindness has, with an added feature of having a much wider range of social and political implications. For example, the advocacy of altruistic ethics, when manifested politically, become the moral justifications for forcing altruistic behavior on others. The entire notion of altruism, is that an individual must put his own interests into the service of others, without personal benefit. Using morality as a basis of political conformity is totalitarianism at its worse.

I say their is no such thing as altruism. That the individual is incapable of both setting aside their own self interests, as well as accurately determining the best interest of others so as to accurately rearrange his own self interest. Furthermore, even if both impossibilities were to occur, the outcome would be same as the individual's self interest to start with by definition, as any change that occurred was an intended part of that self interest and thereby it could not have been set aside to start with. Altruism is therefore a hoax. It does not exist. There never has been a true altruist. But the political results of its deceptions have been, and still are, very real.

Ethics, directly traceable back to ancient Greece, has been a developing discipline, throughout history, as has been Christian ethics. Ethics as an area of study was pretty much buried during the roller coaster era of Christian rule, its development took off again with the protestant reformation and loss of Christian power and authority. With ethics once again being allowed to be developed separate from Christianity, it took off independent of and in conjunction with the dominate Christian religion. Trade back and forth, between the various forms of Christian and secular ethics, had influence both ways. Introduction of its Asian forms as well as reintroduction of its ancient Odinistic forms added to the general mix, as ethics over all became increasingly secular again.

Christian ethics, even by the leaders of the reformation, was substantially different from what we today call Christian ethics. From Martin Luther's support of the mass slaughters in the peasant revolts through the Divine Right of Kings and on to the divine right of governments, very little of Christian ethics then had anything in common with today's Christian ethics, that can't also be traced back to developments that came out of pre- Christian ancient Greece and Rome.

Now I'm not saying that their was no major Christian developments, in spite of its influence. There were many like Calvin who had a tremendous influence on the work ethic, even after it was largely compromised. But over all, ethics from the end of the 17th century, has been primarily reestablished and developed as a secular discipline. I say it has influenced Christianity every bit as much, if not more, than Christianity has influenced it. This is particularly true with regard to the early 18th century developments in ethics, which so heavily influenced our American Revolution and the founders of our country. Christian ethics of that time taught that government authority came from God and did not allow for any of it to occur.

As for today, Christian ethics is a mixed bag. The secular attack on its conservative side is absolutely mind boggling. The secularists ability to influence so many with such obvious propaganda, that anyone can see through for what it is, is only made possible by the failure of Christians at taking hard ethical stands, and thereby are either viewed as being hypocritical or wanting to establish a theocracy. And so we end up with knee jerk politics from both sides.

Now as far as Rand being outside the pale of Christian ethics goes, so also is almost everyone else. Some of Rand's comments on kindness, as I think I recall them, are still quite novel. Being such, they are going to fall out side any existing mainstream positions, Christian, secular, or otherwise. How much of it was pure attention grabbing so as to present her theory regarding selfishness, we will never know. But one thing is for certain, refined and compromised versions of several significant concepts in ethics, are today easier to explain than they were before Rand.

There is a problem mandating altruism, and Rand was good to point that out. But there is a problem not teaching kindness as well. In fact, if people were properly taught Christian ethics of voluntary (there is no other kind) charity, there would be no impetus to emulate charity through laws. Note that prior to 20 century, when the West was still listening to the social teaching of the Christian church, the government was completely separated from charity.

Besides, the fact that our political system is screwed up is no reason to discard the notional system, in which altruism is a necessary part. When an airplane crashes, you won't say "there is no such thing as gravity".

The classical philosophy made a contribution in Christian theology, noticeable in the Gospel of John and fully developed by Aquinas. But Christ's ethical teaching, in particular expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, was revolutionary. It is therefore the start of the Western ethical teaching.

I would say that starting at about 1500 the West experienced decline in all but techology, slow at first, very rapid in the 20 century. The dilution and often complete negation of Christianity indeed is not solely, not even primarily, Rand's fault. So I could perhaps agree that modern eclectism has many fathers. Or mothers.

But arguing over the demise of the West is probably another topic.

In fact, if people were properly taught Christian ethics of voluntary... charity, there would be no impetus to emulate charity through laws. Note that prior to 20 century, when the West was still listening to the social teaching of the Christian church, the government was completely separated from charity.

Government church taxes are the norm in European history. Even here in the early United States, church taxes were the norm, existing in all the states with the exception of New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Christian ethical influence of earlier colonial America were monstrous. For example the Virginia statute known as the Dade Code which imposed a death penalty on any person who "spoke impiously of the Trinity or one of the divine persons, or against the known articles of Christian faith." The death penalty could also be imposed for missing church three times without cause, and jail time for arguing with a member of the anglican clergy, who were the only legal clergy of Virginia. It required that new people in the colony be questioned by the local clergy to determine if they were holy enough to stay.

Reversing and eliminating the effects of Christian ethics from the American law was a hard fought protracted political war that went on for several decades after the American Revolution. Thankfully the secularists won that war. One of those secularists, James Madison, wrote early on in his life at age 22 that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project." Later as President of the United States, he was once forced to veto two bills that attempted to reestablish the old doctrine of Christian ethics in the single month of February, 1811. One was a bill passed by Congress to give land in the Mississippi Territory to the Baptist, the other was a bill to provide funds to a "pious charity" established by the Episcopal Church of Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The fight with the old Christian ethics was hardly over even during his Presidency.

Thus your conclusion "that prior to 20 century, when the West was still listening to the social teaching of the Christian church, the government was completely separated from charity," is not correct. One of the best examples is the famous Congressman Davy Crockett legacy that has been posted to FreeRepublic many times over the years since you and I joined it. Its well worth the read.

Christ's ethical teaching, in particular expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, was revolutionary. It is therefore the start of the Western ethical teaching.

No doubt about it, Christ's ethical teaching were quite revolutionary. But they have never at any time been a part of the Western ethical teaching, and definitely did not start it. The Wests ethical teaching started in ancient Greece, predating the gospels by several hundred years. As far as Christ's ethical teachings go, they have always been rejected by ethics, as well as by all mainstream Christian churches throughout history since at least the 4th century. All mainstream churches today completely ignore his teaching's on ethics.

I would say that starting at about 1500 the West experienced decline...

I am pretty well read in history, and cannot imagine what you are referring to here. Please explain? No hurry, I work long hours on all Sundays and Mondays, and may not read your reply till Tuesday. Thankyou.

The church tax was paid by the church members. No one was forced to be Christian. Exceptions existed, but the model was that of voluntary participation.

Secularism is what brought us oppressive government. Why? Because religion is essentially voluntary: its laws are binding on its adherents and are merely advice to others. The government, in contrast, has a monopoly of power, which is claimed territorially. You could be a Jew or a Muslim in Medieval France, but you cannot pledge allegiance to Spain in the French Republic today, -- you will have to move to Spain. Once the legal realm grew separately from the religious realm, the law became imposed territorially by force and either we got government-enforced ethics or government-enforced evil. Neither is a very good deal for the individual.

Differently put, feudalism was all about voluntary allegiances, to the suzerain and to the church. This is why the libertarians should study the Middle Ages as their model, rather than assume that the French or American republics were their models. There was much good about the American republic (nothing good about the French one), but its rootedness in the false ideals of the Enlightenment doomed it to failure: it only survived a few decades.

Church taxes were not voluntary, and people were forced to accept teachings of particular denominations of Christianity. There were rare and unusual exceptions, but the model was definitely not voluntary.

Your idea that it was secularism that brought us oppressive government does not measure up with history. While it is true that since the secularists pretty much won out politically over the the Christians by the early mid 19th Century, the matter did not end. Since then both pseudo liberal and pseudo conservative Christians alike, have been continually attempting (often quite successfully), to make their various Christian doctrines a part of our secular laws. They have often done so by joining forces with specific secular forces on an issue by issue basis. Thus, blame does not lie particularly with either the Christians or Secularists.

Your idea that one could be a Jew or a Muslim in Medieval France, is only periodically and circumstantially true under very restrictive conditions, and thereby can also be said to be quite wrong. Your idea that feudal allegiances were voluntary, takes the word voluntary to such a new level of understanding, as to render it a whole new meaning.

...libertarians should study the Middle Ages as their model, rather than assume that the French or American republics were their models.

I do not agree that either should be studied as "their model." But both do need to be studied as "a model." As I have viewed it, one or a combination of several varying models of the former, as well as various forms of corporate models (both feudal and non feudal), are far more likely than any of the later two models. But those are not the only models.

It is however, my opinion that the current popular libertarian visions (if accepted, adopted or applied), would result in something much different than intended. I say shame on the Libertarian Party for brushing such considerations and studies under the rug in its rush to gain quick easy conservative votes. The route of least resistance, is not the route of greatest advantage.

Well, this is why feudalism is fundamentally a society of free men (excepting instances of serfdom).

1. Civil allegiance was based on an oath of loyalty between two men. Loyalties could shift for a good reason. A choice of loyalties was available often without travel. Contrast that with territorial loyalty to the transcendent state.

2. Rights were hereditary. Contrast that with our nominally inalienable rights subject to court interpretation and legislation.

3. Morality and law was understood to be inseparable and to come from the universal teaching of the church. In other words, the fundamental law was separate from the feudal lord, while the local law of the manor was changeable with the change of the manor, and appeals to the universal law. Contrast that with the state as source of all law that we have.

I do not deny that feudalism had many dark sides. We would not enjoy it. But the above principles are common to all feudal societies and are superior to ours. Of course, this is a political system that survived for over 1000 years across many lands, while ours shows old age dementia after 200 years, and was only stable in the British cultural sphere.

I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model is an attractive goal. I also think that it very closely approximates feudalism. My doubts regarding the anarcap model are that it forgets about the universal church and therefore its success will depend on the success with which the universal church will assert itself in the anarcap world. I see a successful technological society of the future as a form of Christian monarchy.

I am pinging our monarchist master of ceremonies since our conversation took a turn he would, I think, enjoy.

I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model is an attractive goal.

"I agree..." was not appropriate to what I said. I did not say that I saw any corporate anarcho-capitalist model as an attractive goal. I'd rather stay with the current mess. The rest of your reply I'll answer later or tomorrow.

OK, sorry.

I don't have time at the moment to study and respond to this thread, but I'll ping the crew and take a look at it later. Glory of Altar and Throne ping for the “Crown Crew”

FReepmail me to get on or off this list

Not much, really. Libertarians trying to vindicate Ayn Rand is a perennial pastime among the true believers. If you want something more amusing, try reading Murray Rothbard's "Mozart was a Red".

The reason I thought monarchists would be interested is the issue of the normative to any social theory of free individual character of feudalism, that the conversation between Jackbob and me morphed into. I am curious to see to what extent the anarchist flavor of feudalism appeals to monarchists. I know it appeals to anarchists and hence to at least some libertarians.

Thanks for your excellent and very interesting comments on this thread, which as you say indeed moved it towards my favorite topic. I certainly agree that there is much to be said for feudalism. While I am not exactly a libertarian, even of the paleo variety, compared to 21st-century democratic statists any traditional monarchist is relatively libertarian.

I once asked one of my Catholic monarchist correspondents who has Distributist leanings what he thought of paleolibertarianism/anarcho-capitalism; he replied that he certainly wished that these two camps constituted mainstream political discourse instead of Democrats and Republicans.

I used to call myself libertarian, till I noticed that it completely misaligns people's expectations of what my position would be on any particular issue.

I do think that individual rights are the correct framework to discuss social theory. But I think that libertarianism understands rights as property rights, which puts the cart in front of the horse. Rights are behaviors that conform with the Golden Rule; property rights may or may not emerge from that, depending on political culture.

Further, libertarianism misunderstands morality -- what we discussed at some length on this thread. This leads to moral decay as a part of libertarain package. Moral decay leads to collapse of freedom as a social institution, and of course, ontologically freedom cannot be understood outside of morals.

So I do not think that libertarianism is sufficient for productive political discourse. Democrat/Republican is simply not a useful framework for anything, particularly since the GOP has morphed into a big government interventionist Wilsonian party.

My big problem with libertarianism is that is still makes too much of an issue out of government. Liberals say govt. is good and libertarians say it is bad; but the simple fact as I see it is that (get ready) good is good and bad is bad. If government laws work for the improvement of soceity, they are good, but if we remove almost all government and let people be as wicked as they please, then that is certainly a bad thing.

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, and I do believe in subsidiarism as a general principle, but it seems to me that government itself is neither good or bad as to size, but what sort of things it does makes all the difference.

Most libertarians would agree with you. But they would qualify it by saying that a good government only protects individual rights; anything beyond that is bad.

It is not wrong, what they say, but the devil is in the details. What are rights? Is to blaspheme a right? Is to withhold charity a right? Is suicide a right? My answer to all three is No. Virtually all libertarians would answer Yes. Is destruction of culture a right? Is culture property?

The reality is, libertarinism is just as much a cultural creed as anything else, but they like to pretend it is some kind of an objective algebra of rights.

In your reply #267 to me you state (in the present tense) "why feudalism is fundamentally a society of free men..." Then you go on to list three reasons (in the past tense) indicating a continuity with your prior historical replies, which I had already challenged. Your first reason implies that civil allegiances were based upon "oath of loyalty between two men," that were "was available often without travel." To this you say: "Contrast that with territorial loyalty to the transcendent state." This is first off an apple and orange comparison, as the latter does not deny the former. It also implies that loyalty requirements of the feudal period were not territorial, where as for the most part they were. It also overlooks the fact that cross territory loyalties are far more available and less restrictive under what you call the "transcendent state," than they could ever be in a feudal system.

In your second reason you state "rights were hereditary." That was only true when they were enforced as such. But in either case, your suggestion to contrast those rights with "our nominally inalienable rights subject to court interpretation and legislation," is a good question. I've done so, as did many others a little more than two hundred years ago. Though not perfect, and in need of many improvements, it is these later rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all (except of course to those who view the only worthy quality of life exists in some long lost desire to kill others in pursuit of some valoric tradition or honor).

The third reason you gave proposes some kind of unexplained virtue in having morality and law inseparable, and coming from some "universal teaching of the church." Of course what "the church" is, was not explained. Again, you ask: "Contrast that with the state as source of all law that we have." Again, recognizing a need for continued improvements, as well as exceptions, the latter has given us much better and stabler law, than the former ever did.

You then went on to say that the principles you cited "are common to all feudal societies and are superior to ours." I can't imagine what was superior about it to ours. Your claim that it was a "political system that survived for over 1000 years across many lands," also is not true. It actually was a grouping of many systems, with the various forms quite often being more different from each other, than many of them are different from the North Korean feudal system.

I agree that the corporate anarcho-capitalist model "very closely approximates feudalism," especially if carried to full term. That to me is the number one draw back or fault with anarcho-capitalistism. Furthermore, much of libertarianism, including many of the more popular minarchist models lead directly to feudal monarchist systems as well. But those are not the only libertarian minarchist models.

At any rate, hiding these calculations of the effect of libertarian policy is wrong, and actually hurts the LP over the long run. Thus I welcome the shining of light on these bugs and will continue to do so myself until they have all been completely exposed and worked out.

And I am a Libertarian.

But I think that libertarianism understands rights as property rights, which puts the cart in front of the horse.

Sadly enough, you are quite right here for many libertarians. But their are large numbers of exceptions. You followed up this statement with mention of the "Golden Rule," thereby implying that it should be the horse. Many libertarians such as my self put the principle that each/all individuals have a right to live their own lives in what ever manner they choose, along with its proviso and implementing rule, was ahead of property rights which we see as a necessary benefit. And then traditional views of property rights have come under new criticism by many libertarians to include by LP founding member David Nolan. At any rate, your assumption that libertarians put the cart before the horse is a very narrow view of the movement.

libertarianism misunderstands morality

This of course I do not agree with you on. My position is that libertarianism more than any other political philosophy, strengthens morality. Among the moralities it strengthens is your "kindness" morality, at least in as far as you have discussed it with me on this thread. All other systems undermine morality (to include "kindness").

This is first off an apple and orange comparison, as [territorial loyalty] does not deny [individual loyalty].

Territorial loyalty is a must in the modernt nation-state, and comes on top of individual loyalties we might have. Indeed it is apples and oranges, and I like oranges. I understand that the feudal society had severe limitations and so territory mattered in the practical sense a lot. But the principles of society were that land is something to be owned, and security arrangements is something pursued between individuals. It is the same merit many anarchists see in the capitalist model of corporate loyalty. If the state went away, we would be freer, and we would exchange labor and goods for security that corporate entities (like Securitas in your mall or your employer) provide professionally on the free market. That system would follow the feudal model in the modern world.

these [political] rights that afford the greatest quality of life to all

Our quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system. Besides my thesis is not that feudalism had quality of life but that feudals were freer than citizens.

what "the church" is, was not explained

I am talking exclusively about Medieval Europe, so the church would be Catholic. The system of law in the Middle Ages was very complex and included fundamental divine law promulgated by the church and overlapping jurisdictions of the manor law and the king's court. It was a well balanced system. I don't think abuses like the juducial diktat of the Supreme Court in the abortion legislation, or like the Schiavo case when sloppy discovery of fact by an incompetent judge of lower jurisdiction would be impossible to overturn no matter how gross the injustice, -- would have been possible if moral considerations were built into the system as they were in the Middle Ages.

It becomes clear from the rest of your post that you are a minarchist libertarian and have the same problem with anarcho-capitalism as you would with feudalism. Perhaps we should simply be discussing the scepticism toward democratic state as expressed by H.H. Hoppe rather than attempting the greater challenge of discussing feudalism.

Territorial loyalty is a must in the modernt nation-state, and comes on top of individual loyalties we might have.

Who says? The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles clearly denies this by implication. The national platform of the Libertarian Party specifically denies this. While it is true that the United States government has operated as you say at least since the forming of the old House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, that does not make your assumption philosophically accurate. This is fundamental error in your premise.

Another fundamental error is that "quality of life is afforded by the technological advances, not by the political system." While technological advances have immensely improved our quality of life, there is plenty of history to show that political systems have more than equally effected our over all quality of life even more so. Moreover, it was changes and improvements in the political systems, that increased the rate of technology advancements.

Your claim that "feudals" were more free, runs counter to everything I've read in history. Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords, we will find that their freedom was much less than what a commoner has in a modern nation state. I even go as far as to claim that the Royals did not have the freedom that commoners of today have, even after accounting for the technological differences.

Your suggestion that the overlapping jurisdictions of the Catholic Church law, kings courts and manor law, were a well balanced system is only as true as viewing the total chaos of its lack of continuity, lack of fairness, and uncertainty of outcome, could be called balanced. There is nothing bad that our legislatures or courts have done today that would not have been quite likely and common place in that system, where all pretense to popular involvement in decision making are discarded, and almost all decisions are based on favoritism and power plays.

Now I'm not saying that there were not some golden decades in particular jurisdictions during feudalism. But all those were short lived, rarely ever lasting even two decades. Feudalism brought order and security to a chaos that was unendurable, much the same as the Taliban brought security and order to the chaos of Afghanistan. Beyond that, there is little else worthy of consideration that came out of it, relates to the politics of human relations.

Woops. There is a concept of sovereign and protected classes of people, that I think is worthy of consideration in as far as defining the rights of children, handicapped, the aged, and anyone else desiring trade decision making rights for certain kinds of security that may be afforded a protected class.