The Vindication of Ayn Rand

The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

[Hank Kerchief]

The Vindication of Ayn Rand

A review of James S. Valliant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

by Cass Hewitt

Who would have thought that within the seemingly sedate and cerebral world of philosophy would be found a history to rival any Hollywood drama for intrigue, passion, seduction, lies, betrayal, black evil, and the ultimate triumph of the good—and which is also a fascinating detective story.

Among those who rose to heights of fame in the last half of the twentieth century none was as charismatic as the author-philosopher Ayn Rand. Her electrifying, radical novels depicting her fully integrated philosophy, which she named Objectivism, broke on popular consciousness like a storm and caught the enthusiasm of a generation seeking truth and values in the aridity of postmodernism. She was a sought after speaker, her public lectures filled to standing room only. She was interviewed on Prime Time television and for high circulation magazines.

She taught a philosophy of individualism in the face of rising collectivism; an ethic of adherence to reality and honesty; of objective truth against the subjectivist antirealism of the Counter Enlightenment philosophies and presented the world with a blue-print for day to day living.

On the coat tails of her fame were two young students who sought her out, convinced her their passion for her ideas was genuine and became associated with her professionally, intellectually, and ultimately personally. They were Nathaniel Branden, now a noted “self-esteem” psychology guru, and his then wife, Barbara Branden.

Not only did Branden, 25 years Rand’s junior, become her favored student, he was so professionally close to her that he gave Objectivist lectures with her, edited and wrote for the “Objectivist Newsletter”, and formed a teaching venue, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, to teach details of her philosophy to the army of readers of her novels hungry for more. Rand dedicated her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged to him (along with her husband), and named Branden her intellectual heir.

Then suddenly, in 1968, Rand issued a statement which repudiated both the Brandens, totally divorcing them from herself and her philosophy. In “To whom it may Concern,” [The Objectivist, May 1968] Rand gave her explanation for the break detailing Brandens departure from practice of the philosophy.

However, in 1989, 7 years after Rand’s death, Nathaniel Branden published his book Judgment Day, a supposedly detailed biography of his famous philosopher-mentor. In it he painted a picture of a woman very different from that recognized by her army of admirers —a dark, “repressed“, angry woman who tortured and pilloried anyone who remotely disagreed with her, with no patience for any views not exactly her own, with an almost pathological arrogance and dictatorial tyranny.

Barbara Branden published her own “warts and all” version of her reminiscences earlier, in 1986. The Passion of Ayn Rand (later made into a movie) presented a similar picture of Rand. Both categorically stated that the reason for the break between Rand and the Brandens was because Nathaniel and Rand had been involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship while still married for a period of 14 years and that Nathaniel’s refusal to continue the affair had reduced a tyrannical Rand to hysterics.

Rand is presented as a seriously psychologically disturbed individual whose very philosophy was not only flawed but dangerous. Both books and their authors have become accepted as the last and most reliable “word” on Ayn Rand, and most works describing Rand today mainly trace back to these two as sources.

However, in 2002 a prosecuting lawyer, James Valliant, published on the Internet the results of his examination of these two books. Studied with the critical eye of a dispassionate investigative mind he saw serious errors: major contradictions both within each book and between both. Apparent to him was that a major act of deliberate deception had been perpetrated by these two well known, highly respected adherents of Rand’s philosophy.

For a considerable time before the final split the Brandens had drifted away from Rand’s philosophy but it was much worse. They lied to her about themselves, the state of their marriage, their multiple sexual affairs, and Nathaniel Branden’s secret four year love affair with another woman while he was supposedly carrying on a sexual liaison with Rand herself . Worst of all, was the reason for the deception. The lies enabled them to use her name to promote their own early publications and the considerable income they were deriving from the “spin-offs“. Nathaniel Branden admits that he frequently “paced the floor” trying to work out how not to wreck the “life he had built up for himself” as Objectivism’s authorized representative. At his wife’s urging that he admit his secret affair to Rand he responded “not until after she writes the forward for my book."

As the author states, “the persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand’s life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.” He amply demonstrates, taking their own words from their critiques of Rand, to substantiate his conclusion that “they will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate and omit whenever convenient… [where] necessary they will pull out of their magical hats a very “private” conversation that one of them “once” had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies.”

Their criticisms of Rand are personal and “psychological,” perfect examples of the psychologizing Rand denounced, attempting to demonstrate that Rand did not live up to her own philosophy. Barbara Branden makes total about face contradictions within a few pages; draws conclusions from nearly non-existent evidence such as a single old family photo and uses such alien to Objectivism concepts as “feminine instincts” and “subjective preferences” without the bother of defining these terms.

In her The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ms. Branden draws personal psychological conclusions without any evidence. Examples such as “Her Fathers’ seeming indifference ..{had} ..to be a source of anguish.. as an adult, she always spoke as if [they] were simple facts of reality, of no emotional significance.. one can only conclude that a process of self-protective emotional repression [was deep rooted]…” and further “In all my conversations with Ayn Rand about her years in Russia she never once mentioned to me [any] encounter ..with anti-Semitism. It is all but impossible that there were not such encounters.. One can only assume that ... the pain was blocked from her memory … perhaps because the memory would have carried with it an unacceptable feeling of humiliation” Assumptions, which Valliant says, prove nothing.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Branden was an ardent supporter of Rand until immediately after the break, when such wild accusations and psychologizing rationalizations cut from whole cloth began. Indeed, Ms. Branden can be read at public Internet forums doing the very same thing to this day.

Nathaniel Branden is even more revealing. His own words not only carry the same blatant unreal contradictions as Ms. Brandens’ but he also reveals a twisted mentality capable of totally unethical acts which he then tries to portray as his victim’s faults. For example, he accuses Rand of being authoritarian and “causing us to repress our true selves” and offers as evidence his own lying sycophancy, agreeing with Rand on issues he was later to claim he had always disagreed; praising Rand's insight in topics such as psychology in which field, he says, she had little experience. Considering that it was Rand's endorsement of him he was seeking, his behavior constitutes, as Valliant says, “spiritual embezzlement.”

The complete lack of value in anything either of the Branden’s have to say about Ayn Rand is summed up with pithy succinctness by the author: “We have seen [they] will distort and exaggerate the evidence, and that they have repeatedly suppressed vital evidence and [employ] creativity in recollecting it. Both exhibit internal confusions and numerous self contradictions. The only consistencies are the passionate biases that emanate from their personal experiences. These factors all combine to render their biographical efforts useless to the serious historian.”

James Valliant has done more than demonstrate the complete invalidity—including a viscous character assassination—of both the Brandens books. Using the clear logic and language of an experienced prosecuting lawyer, with only essential editing, he has presented and interpreted Rand’s own private notes, made while she was acting as psychological counselor for Nathaniel Branden. These show her mind in action as she analyses the language of, and finally understands the bitter truth about, the man she had once loved.

Mr. Valliant not only demonstrates this is a tragic story of assault on innocence by a viciously duplicitous person, it is also an amazing detective story, and the detective is none other than Ayn Rand herself.

Over the four years of emotionally painful psychological counseling Rand gave Branden for his supposed sexual dysfunction, we see a brilliant mind carefully dissecting the truths she unearthed. By applying her own philosophy to Branden’s methods of thinking although still unaware of the worst of his deceptions, we see Rand slowly reaching her horrifying conclusion.

The picture of Rand which shines out through her notes is of a woman of amazing depths of compassion; who would not judge or condemn if she could not understand why a person thought and felt as they did; who would give all her time and energy to try to understand and help someone she believed was suffering and in need of guidance.

The facts indicate the sexual affair was apparently over 4 years before the final public split, though Mr. Valiant is careful to say he is only certain it had ended by the start of 1968 and that it was Rand, not Branden, who ended the relationship because she had finally understood his subjectivism, deceits (including financial misappropriation) and mental distortions.

From the flaws in their own works and from Rand's concurrent notes of the time it is clearly apparent that in her 1968 statement of repudiation, Rand told the truth about events and the Brandens lied. Throughout all of her years with them, Rand behaved with the integrity followers of her work would have expected. And, to quote Mr. Valliant, “The Brandens were dishonest with Rand about nearly everything a person can be … largely to maintain the good thing they had going at NBI. This dishonesty lasted for years. ..[They] not only lied to Rand, they lied to their readers .. [and] then they lied about their lies. Ever since they have continued to lie in memoirs and biographies about their lies, calling Rand's 1968 statement ‘libelous’. This remarkable all-encompassing dishonesty is manifest from these biographies and all the more apparent now we have Rand's journal entries from the same period.”

Her generous nature was unable to conceive the full truth about Nathaniel Branden. It is left to Valliant to finish the story, taking it to its full and final dreadful conclusion, showing exactly what it was Nathaniel Branden had deliberately done to this innocent, brilliant, compassionate woman, and what both the Brandens, whom Rand rejected as having any association at all with her philosophy, are still doing to this day—and why.

In the end, those who have used the Branden’s lies to claim the philosophy of Objectivism “doesn’t work, because it’s author couldn’t follow the precepts,” are shown to be completely wrong. Rand used her philosophy and psycho-epistemology to discover the truth; her philosophy to guide her actions in dealing with it and finally to lift her above the heartbreak and pain it caused her.

There is something almost operatic in the telling: A great woman, a great mind, who conceived of a philosophy of love for and exalted worship of the best in the human mind, who defended with searing anger the right of all people to be free to discover happiness, being deceived by the one person she believed to be her equal, her lover and heir, who had lied to and manipulated her for his own gains while she was alive and vilified her name and distorted with calumny the image of her personality after her death.

Perhaps in nothing else is her greatness better shown, than that she was able to rise above the cataclysm and live and laugh again. She always said, “Evil is a negative.. It can do nothing unless we let it.” In her life she lived that and proved it true.

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.

[annalex]

OK, sorry.

[kjvail]

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

[TradicalRC]

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".

[annalex]

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.

[royalcello]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[Guelph4ever]

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.

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.

[jackbob]

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").

[annalex]

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.

[jackbob]

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.