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]

The national platform of the Libertarian Party specifically denies this

Very good for them, but we are not arguing over the LP platform. We are arguing over policies currently implemented. For the past 500 years loyalty was to the territorially-defined state. The US Constitution mentions just one crime by name and that is treason. And for a good reason, because the way thew system of defense of individual rights and justice is implemented is through the state. One cannot choose to be judged by French laws and live in Spain. HCUAC has not invented anything new. It is just that, for example, the Communist or Taliban sympathizers were prosecuted by our state, under the political system we have there is no better alternative. But the system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justuce is also possible, we just don't have it. It is, I think, coming, and elements of feudalism and monarchy will play a central role in it.

Individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state. I am glad the LP recognizes it, -- if in fact it does.

political systems have more than equally [a]ffected our over all quality of life

Surely as a libertarian you would agree with me that technological progress is a function of the free market, so the political system affects it inasmuch as it supports the free market. But political constraints on the free market were first imposed by the nation-state.

Even if we make a peculiar definition for "feudals" (which you did not define), as being only the lords

I did mention that I did not speak for the serfs which of course were not free, -- although even they had specific rights. All other members of the feudal society -- the lords, and merchants, the crafstmen, the peasant churls, the clergy -- had well defined hereditary rights which could not be taken away legally, and which could be increased if one upgraded his social class. Those rights were unequal. We might consider that a drawback. But they were also immutable, because they were hereditary. That is something we lost.

I suspect that you go by popular history which makes a caricature of feudalism, and rarely is interested in the principles of the feudal society. It tends to play up the violence, the bizarre customs, and the lack of creature comforts. We should be looking beyond those.

[jackbob]

...we are not arguing over the LP platform. We are arguing over policies currently implemented.

Wrong! While we have definitely not been arguing over the LP platform, what we have been arguing over is replacing a system because of particular short falls in it. My reference to the LP platform was only to give an example of showing that particular short comings in the system are not by definition a part of the system. In other words, the system could just as well exist with out all the particular faults you refer to. It was those faults we were discussing.

But the system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justuce is also possible, we just don't have it. It is, I think, coming, and elements of feudalism and monarchy will play a central role in it.

Clarity is need here. By a "system of collective defense," I assume you mean ultimate defense, in other words defense of last or highest resort. I qualify this, as all kinds of collective defenses are allowable under a state monopoly of justice system. Additionally, no state has ever had a monopoly of justice. States only have a monopoly of ultimate justice. Thus I assume that you are talking about ultimate justice or justice of last resort also.

If that be what you mean, then I have to ask just how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly, as they have become the state monopoly them selves.

Individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state. I am glad the LP recognizes it, -- if in fact it does.

I do not agree that the LP recognizes this, only that it currently allows for it. I also do not agree that "individual procurement of defense on the free market is not possible unless anarchy is implemented and law is separated from the state." Unless of course, you are referring to the ultimate I described in my last paragraph. Murrey Rothbard, in his Libertarian Manifesto, attempted to explain how such an anarchist system would work, but in my opinion failed at addressing the ultimate question.

Quite possibly an ultimate lottery system could ultimately provide a solution to Rothbard's failure, but I find that wholly unacceptable. Of course we could have a tournament joust for it I suppose.

...political constraints on the free market were first imposed by the nation-state.

It was states that first instituted free markets. They were also those who often restricted and eliminated them. Nation-states, are only a broader continuation of that which had been going on before.

feudal society... had well defined hereditary rights which could not be taken away legally, and which could be increased if one upgraded his social class. Those rights were unequal. We might consider that a drawback. But they were also immutable, because they were hereditary. That is something we lost.

Hereditary rights were not as all common place in feudal societies as you propose here. Where they were common place, they were also quite restrictive, often keeping people from doing what they could do best, while locking them economically into vocations that were not of their calling. Hereditary rights were a short lived, overall disaster. They were constantly the subject of debate, and were only completely instituted towards the end of feudalism as a last resort by those wanting to hold on to what was already falling into decline.

Even the monarchist system that came out of feudalism was not entirely based upon hereditary rights, and where those rights were propagated, challenges were constant and prevented it from being fully implemented. "The divine right of kings" was more political propaganda of its time, than it was accepted truth, and was also not enforce to the extent that many believe it was.

In short hereditary rights were not universally accepted or in place during the feudal or monarchist periods. Where absolutely put in place, they were quite restrictive and quickly modified so as to make possible enough profitable labor to enable society to survive. They were constantly debated, and never fully accept in Europe. If you think they were, then it is you that has been reading to much popular history.

[leftwingconservative]

Of course we could have a tournament joust for it I suppose.

That's all we get out of the courts to start with. Only, under the current system, the cowardly lawyers play the tournaments in a way that gives them a win even when they lose.

Zounds like you are proposing more of the same.

[annalex]

In other words, the system could just as well exist with out all the particular faults you refer to

The current system is that of a nation-state. LP is a revolutionary party that seeks to subvert the system. In this particular instance I agree with LP. You cannot use LP's platfrom to describe the current system. Their proposal is radical; so is appreciation of the feudalism that I advocate.

I assume that you are talking about ultimate justice or justice of last resort also.

I am not sure what that really entails. The Middle Ages had a distributed system of justice, -- not merely hierarchical like ours, but distributed, so that the Divine Law operates across political boundaries, and self-government prevailed in local matters.

how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly

The feudal system was that a village or an individual could contract out their defense, offering their services or resources in consideration. This, -- not designations like "France" or "Spain", -- determined the perimeter of collective defense. That is superior.

Murrey Rothbard, in his Libertarian Manifesto, attempted to explain how such an anarchist system would work, but in my opinion failed at addressing the ultimate question.

True, they failed. They did so because they did not look into the other component of feudalism: the permeation of Divine Law through the supranational church. Anarchism alone is not a workable system. Anarchism coupled with common culture of objective truth is.

It was states that first instituted free markets.

You call yourself libertarian? The state helps a free market by providing a system of contract law. But contract law does not necessarily mean the state. We have successful system of international trade which by definition operates outside of any one state, even today.

Where [hereditary rights] were common place, they were also quite restrictive, often keeping people from doing what they could do best, while locking them economically into vocations that were not of their calling

Any right has that effect. If you inherit a farm today, you are restricted to be a farmer, or you sell it. The common avenue for advancement was religious orders and military careers. They were then a way to abandon what was secured by birthright in favor of something risky, and also potentially more rewarding. I don't ses much difference between that and the limitations the working class kids have in choosing their career today. The good thing about rights is that they secure benefits; one who wants to venture outside of the secure perimeter find little value in rights, today or a thousand years ago. However, a medieval man knew that his birthright could not be taken away legally. today, we don't have that knowledge, because of the democratic system of right distribution.

Hereditary rights were complemented with privileges, just as today. Some rights had a democratic origin -- for example, the early Germanic kings wer elected. So, it is perhaps true that the hereditary system was fluid, but the underlying system of birthright afforded greater security to the individual.

[Cincinna]

Ayn Rand's philosophy, works and belief system are total flawed. They are based on a central core of beliefs, observation and analysis that might be brilliant as a self created dynamic but fall apart under deeper intellectual scrutiny.
Ayn Rand was an atheist, and all her beliefs and philosophy stem from that central belief.

[jackbob]

I agree that the LP is a radical revolutionary party. I disagree however that it seeks to subvert our current nation-state system. The LP seeks to transform it legally, with in the system by constitutional means, into something new. It seeks to do this with a genuine and general openness. Additionally, it has every intention of keeping it a country-state, while bringing about those changes. Beyond that, the LP has not settled on its ultimate objective, minarchy or anarchy. I have decided to use the word country-state here, as we are arguing with a certain degree of precision. The term "nation state" may not apply should this exchange continue for many more replies. I prefer to use country-state as our exchange may lead to a distinction that identifies the United States as geographical state as opposed to a state based upon blood or culture. I welcome your continuing to call it a nation-state, without objection of any kind.

You cannot use LP's platfrom to describe the current system.

But I did not use it to describe the current system. What I said, that you seemed to miss, was that "my reference to the LP platform was only to give an example of showing that particular short comings in the system are not by definition a part of that system." That is not the same as using the platform to describe the system.

Speaking about ultimate or highest justice (the justice of last resort), you say you are "not sure what that really entails." I brought it in as I said for "clarity." This I thought was necessary, as you were speaking of a "system of collective defense" Since I pointed out that we already have such systems (plural) independently existing with in the current state system, as they also exists independently in all types of governmental systems, and you were using the the phrase "a system" (in a singular and not plural sense), I felt clarity was needed. I brought it up in relationship to your statement in reply #381 that a "...system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justice is also possible, we just don't have it." But we do have it. As you so elegantly pointed it out when you cited "Securitas" in your reply #279. I was thus left to conclude that the system you spoke of (in the singular) was a system based upon a highest justice, which would be a state monopoly of the highest justice, as opposed to all other levels of justice that are not monopolized. In other words, a court of last resort.

Your claim that the "Middle Ages had a distributed system of justice, -- not merely hierarchical like ours, but distributed, so that the Divine Law operates across political boundaries, and self-government prevailed in local matters," clearly sounds like a hierarchical super state monopoly to me. At any rate as far as this actually existing in a consistent and meaningful manner, so as to provide basic rights of any kind, to any one, in the middle ages, I cannot agree with in any respect. My disagreement here is so total, that with out further specificity as to when, where, and what it is you are talking about, my answer could go on for volumes and still not deal directly with what you are saying. Quite possibly, it might be in order here, for you to be specific as to a couple of neighboring regions, a particular 3 decade period of time, so as we may be able to more precisely discuss it.

I raised the question of "how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly, as they have become the state monopoly them selves." You replied by quoting my question out of context, leaving off the last phrase of it. In doing so, you enabled a switch from the singular to the plural, and then gave an answer that could quite easily apply to the current state system, as it would to a feudal system. Again I refer you to your own example of "Securitas."

Then you returned to the singular concept of state monopoly justice when quoting my statement that Rothbard failed, by agreeing with me for all together different reasons. Here you quite specifically put a "supernational" church up as having the monopoly on justice in a single state system, as the final authority on law. Further stating that Anarchism coupled with common culture of objective truth (that is church authority on law) is workable. I don't agree. But more importantly, a church ran state is not anarchy in any sense of the word.

You quote me saying "it was states that first instituted free markets." But you left out that I also went on to say that they (the states) were "also those who often restricted and eliminated them" (the free markets). Leaving this out, made it easy for you to come back with the question: "You call yourself libertarian?" You then went on to concede that "the state helps a free market by providing a system of contract law." States did a lot more than that. It may be worth noting here, that the few free markets that ever existed in history, it was a banding together of the people into a state that made it possible in almost all cases. No pure monarchy that I know of ever allowed a free market. England never actually had a free market, as many believe it did.

Of course I agree that contract law does not necessarily mean the state. But your example of international trade operating out side any one state by definition, does not exclude the state(s) from making it possible. International trade also does not necessarily have anything to do with a free market by definition. State imposed franchise trade arrangements and other barriers have always dominated international trade, even to this day.

Finally, your contention that restrictions in live that were common place during feudalism were not that much different from todays restrictions, except that hereditary rights were somehow more secure, just is not true in any respect.

If you inherit a farm today, you are restricted to be a farmer, or you sell it. The common avenue for advancement was religious orders and military careers. They were then a way to abandon what was secured by birthright in favor of something risky, and also potentially more rewarding. I don't ses much difference between that and the limitations the working class kids have in choosing their career today. The good thing about rights is that they secure benefits; one who wants to venture outside of the secure perimeter find little value in rights, today or a thousand years ago. However, a medieval man knew that his birthright could not be taken away legally. today, we don't have that knowledge, because of the democratic system of right distribution.

First off, if one inherits a farm today, they need not sell it or become a farmer, to pursue a different vocation. Today a lower middle class or working class person can pursue several vocations simultaneously, and need never settle on any one or two vocations. They can even become a bit of a jack of all trades and do so just about any where in the world they want to, and still be welcome back into the community they started out from as a visitor or to conduct business on a part time or full time basis. This was not possible during any of the unspecified medieval times you speak of. Further more the rights you speak of were not even close to being as common place as you think, but all the restrictions were.

[annalex]

I agree that LP is not subversive in any trasonous or otherwise negative way, sorry to have made that impression.

The point is that country-state (indeed a better term) is what we know. Perhaps the system can be transformed legally along the minarchist or anarchist lines, but it will be a different system once it is accomplished.

I understand that we have private security and agree that it may provide a kernel of law enforcement independent from the state. But we don't have a system of law separate from the state, other than completely deprecated common (customary) law. The medieval system was not merely hierarchical, it had independent subsystems of justice. The church law operated differently and independently across local jurisdictions. The king's court, ditto, and the local manor court was also independent. The church, for example, could not dictate the resolution of property disputes, and the king could not dictate what heresies were. When the king attempted to defy the Church, or the Church tried to dethrone the king, it was a crisis, resolved through diplomacy or arms. Therefore, these systems were truly independent, and the Church was not a super state, and it did not "run" any states. It was something similar to the system of universal rights that the libertarians hope to implement (do they?).

If I miscontrued any of your points, I apologize. I do not intend to obfuscate. Yours are long posts, and I cannot pretend to answer everything in them with precision. I prefer to make my point of view clear and let the reader decide.

[annalex]

Regarding the state's role in free markets: I do not dispute that it can play a positive role, for example, in setting up standards. The point is that the state is not necessary for a free market: roads are, and contract law. Feudalism provided the latter but not the former.

The ecconomics of medieval life were restrictive indeed, except for the thin upper layer. A farmer was uneducated and lacked leisure so as a practical matter he was stuck in the farm. A modern farmer has much greater mobility. But the medieval farmer knew that he and his children will have the farm forever, unless war destroys it or they sell it. Modern property rights are nowhere nearly as secure: laws can be passed that virtually invalidate farming or tax the farmer out of his land. Our property is subject to the whims of state; their property was subject to the ability of the farmer to physically defend it, himself or through contractual vassalage.

[jackbob]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, but other priorities took precedents over my time.

The medieval system was not merely hierarchical, it had independent subsystems of justice.

On this we disagree historically speaking, in as much as I say there was no medieval system of justice that can be particularly described as such.

I also do not agree that the church was not a super state. Using the argument of limited jurisdiction to say it was not a superstate, overlooks the fact that all governments throughout history have exercised limited jurisdiction to some degree or another. And so it was with the Church.

Your idea that "the Church... did not 'run' any states," is also not historically correct as you state it. Church lands, were quite often a state unto themselves, sometimes subordinate to other non church states, and sometimes completely independent of all other non church states.

Circumstantially, I can agree that the church you speak of "...was something similar to the system of universal rights that the libertarians hope to implement." Or at least many of them hope to implement. But such a notion at this time does not best describe libertarianism, as the considerations and options are far to numerous. It also implies a settled issue, that the libertarians have not even come close to settling.

[jackbob]

...the medieval farmer knew that he and his children will have the farm forever, unless war destroys it or they sell it.

I do not agree here. I say quite the opposite was actually the case. The medieval farmer was constantly taxed out of his produce, his children were drafted out of their farm, and quite often his land lords children who he had to raise as his own inherited the farm. In short, their was no system, only power plays.

Modern property rights are nowhere nearly as secure: laws can be passed that virtually invalidate farming or tax the farmer out of his land.

The rare exceptions where laws have been passed that actually invalidate existing farms are not an accurate descriptive of modern property rights. Yes farmers are taxed out of their farms today. But that is nothing compared to the arbitrary taxing of the entire produce in medieval times, that often forced farmers to abandon their farms to work the lords farms in order to avoid starvation.

Our property is subject to the whims of state; their property was subject to the ability of the farmer to physically defend it, himself or through contractual vassalage.

Our body of law, though imperfect and often corrupted, does not in general subject the peoples property rights to the whims of the state, nearly as much as peoples property rights were under the monarchist systems. Feudalism was even worse.

[annalex]

I also do not agree that the church was not a super state

The powerful and ardent pope, Gregory VII, sought in all earnestness to realize the Kingdom of God on earth under the guidance of the papacy. As successor of the Apostles of Christ, he claimed supreme authority in both spiritual and secular affairs. It seemed to this noble idealism that the successor of Peter could never act otherwise than according to the dictates of justice, goodness, and truth. In this spirit he claimed for the papacy supremacy over emperor, kings, and princes. But during the Middle Ages a rivalry had always existed between the popes and the emperors, twin representatives, so to speak, of authority. Henry III, the father of the young king, had even reduced the papacy to complete submission, a situation which Gregory now strove to reverse by crushing the imperial power and setting in its place the papacy. A long and bitter struggle was therefore unavoidable.

(Source: Conflict of Investitures)

In short, their was no system, only power plays.

That is a modern myth. It is impossible to read on the Middle Ages without constant reference to laws and covenants in effect at the time. It was a highly legalized society. But the point is not that both raw power and law existend in some kind of balance, just as today. The role of feudal proto-government -- the feudal lord -- was solely collective defense. Taxes levied by lay authority may have been high or low depending on many factors, but they went to support the only legitimate role of government -- defense of life and property, and delivery of justice. It was, particulalry in the early Middlel Ages, a direct trade of goods and labor for military protection.

[jackbob]

I'm a bit confused. You provide one example of of many that could be provided, where the super state (the papacy) sought to increase its authority... etc. That sounds to me like you are making my point.

It is impossible to read on the Middle Ages without constant reference to laws and covenants in effect at the time.

I agree. Should you read that history a little closer, you'll find that those in power were constantly making new law to replace inconvenient old law and that covenants in most cases changed so fast, they were hardly worth the paper they were written on.

Taxes levied by lay authority... went to support the only legitimate role of government -- defense... and... justice."

Taxes in those days were spent on adventurism and splendor for the elite much the same as in today's world. All of which can be argued as being in defense of the people, or providing justice. The only actual real world difference is that today people generally have a right to look at the records and a small say on what adventurism and splendor the money is going to be spent on. And of course, most important of all - today's people are much more free to live their own lives as they choose. With that comes a stability and prosperity that was not known in the middle ages.

[annalex]

You provide one example of of many that could be provided, where the super state (the papacy) sought to increase its authority

The investiture controversy is the pivot around which the state-church relation swiveled for 1000 years. It is not one example among many, it is the crux of state-church relations in the Middle Ages. Prior to Gregory VII the feudal protostate was weak and power was disperesed between many lords, between which the vassal was able to choose more or less freely. Such protostate, however, was able to invest bishops, although they were never quite independent from Rome, which controlled the doctrine they taught and adjudicated. The Gregory VII revolution was a reaction to consolidation of power by emerging kings. It succeeded in providing a stronger check on the lay power of kings in the bishops now appointed from Rome. Both before and after the controversy the justice system remained dispersed between lay and church law. The very fact that the controversy took place is sufficient to prove my point, that neither the church ran the state, nor the state ran the church throughout the Middle Ages.

constantly making new law to replace inconvenient old law

The Canon law changed very little to this day. Its core is the Divine Law, which is incapable of any change at all. Local laws may have been changing, for sure, -- if you have a specific example we can discuss that. Do not forget though that we are talking about a period of roughly 1000 years.

The only actual real world difference is that today people generally have a right to look at the records and a small say on what adventurism and splendor the money is going to be spent on.

Our system provides an illusion of access and control, and the result is a stockholm-syndrom populace that is unprecedentedly docile by historical standards. 50% of our income goes to the fine-tuning the political system of the Middle East and the Balkans, shooting useless rockets into the empty space, forcing an inefficient retirement system of the working class, and perpetuating miseducation and depravity at home through the welfare system. Absolute monarchy is not my ideal, but I'd much rather have a Sun King eating big dinners at Versailles and ignoring me in my kitchen.

[jackbob]

Prior to Gregory VII the feudal protostate was weak and power was disperesed between many lords, between which the vassal was able to choose more or less freely.

I would agree that what you describe here did have its occurrence to a small relative degree from time to time and place to place. But it was hardly common place that vassals were able to choose their lords freely as you suggest, before or after Gregory VII.

The very fact that the controversy took place is sufficient to prove my point, that neither the church ran the state, nor the state ran the church throughout the Middle Ages.

Actually it does provide a good example that proves that the church from time to time ran much more of the state in particular territories than just religious matters. Other examples during that same exact century can be brought forth showing the secular government controlling the church. The back and forth nature of the chaotic church/government relations of that time only demonstrates that their were super states, that the church from time to time was the super state, that the church at other times was nothing more than a vassal to a non church super state, and still at other times shared power with super states. Your whole idea of a "proto" system of stability did not exist during the times you speak of.

Do not forget though that we are talking about a period of roughly 1000 years.

I'm not forgetting. In a prior reply of mine I asked for some specificity so as to look at this period in the best possible light to your case. Even here, it is impossible to discuss this matter without specifying the years when this 1000 years began and ended. If you would select the best century out of those unknown 10 centuries, then maybe we could better discuss this proto system that I say never existed.

[annalex]

it was hardly common place that vassals were able to choose their lords freely

I talk about the principle. You talk about outcomes. In principle, the society was organized around voluntary exchange of goods and labor for military protection, which is vassalage. The outcomes rarely demonstrated fluidity of vassal-lord relationship because in general trade and movement was restricted, and because the nature of loyalty is such that it is a coin of value only if changed extremely rarely.

The back and forth nature of the chaotic church/government relations of that time only demonstrates that their were super states, that the church from time to time was the super state, that the church at other times was nothing more than a vassal to a non church super state

It demonstrates that the state and the church were orthogonal structures of power that coexisted in tension.

select the best century

West Europe, 400 - 1400, take your pick. The early Middle Ages (till 11 century) had a better pronounced anarchistic system of self-government and voluntary vassalage. In the High Middle Ages (11 - 15 centuries) monarchies began to appear, offset in power by a more centralized and politically assertive church. Quality of life and fecundity of culture were markedly better past 10 century.

[jackbob]

In principle, the society was organized around voluntary exchange of goods and labor for military protection, which is vassalage.

The principle you present here never existed to even be considered. The few places where it was put into actual practice, it happened only for a very short time (never more than a half century). Vassals as such did not even make a widely accepted appearance until the 11th century, and they did not relate much to common people until the 13th century. There was no established set of rules or written set of principles, on which guidance could be found for governing society, except possibly the mild punitive measures that could be enforced against the unwarranted killing of slaves, as set out by the Council of Worms in 876. But it would be several hundred years before that restriction was common place in Europe.

As Europe moved into the more modern Monarchist Era in the 13th century, new laws came into being and became common place for cutting off legal escape into the church as well as freeing military service, and thereby common people became increasingly locked in to their involuntary status as either slaves or serfs. The only voluntary options open to the common people, at that time, was the common practice among the few freemen and freedmen to volunteer to become slaves or serfs so as to avoid starvation. That of course was limited to the few of them who lasted long enough without breaking one of the many many local laws that resulted in their enslavement before hand.

...the state and the church were orthogonal structures of power that coexisted in tension.

Actually, this could be more accurately stated that secular powers and the church powers were orthogonal structures... But I would not agree, except to say that only occasionally was this true. For the most part the church was a super state governing over its various areas to varying degrees. In some situations, places, and times, the church was weaker than the secular powers, while in others it was stronger. Over all, every century between the 400 and 1400 was so all chaotic, that it is impossible to say which was more so.

[investigateworld]

I'm going through it too, but very slowly. I got a paper back with the worlds small print. (So who is John Galt?)

[annalex]

Vassal-suzerein relationship is fundamental to feudalism. Consult any book.

Feudalism can be simply defined as

1. fragmentation of political power;
2. public power in private hands; and
3. armed forces secured through private contracts.

Feudalism

the church was a super state

Prior to the Investiture Controversy, the local secular lord would install bishops and Rome would complain that the bishops were not to its liking. Following Gregory VII, Rome wrestled the right to appoint bishops from the German Emperor, in exchange for absolution of Emperor's' sins, which cleared a way for the Emperor to be elected by the (secular) council of princes. The Emperor quickly reversed himself and fought a war on Rome.

And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honour of the apostolic see; thou, however, has understood our humility to be fear, and hast not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from thee!

(Letter of King Henry IV to Gregory VII)

This describes Rome as a superstate?

[weatherwax]

Perhaps you would like to provide some of your deeper intellectual analysis to prove your point?
Rands' philosophy has been under close scrutiny for over 50 years. No-one has come close to proving it wrong. In fact, in the collapse of Soviet Russia and other communist states from poverty and starvation, and the same horrific scenarios being played out elsewhere (Africa), everything she ever said is being vindicated time and again.
so, no unsubstantiated opinion.
Lets have some reasoned arguement.

[jackbob]

Vassal-suzerein relationship is fundamental to feudalism. Consult any book.

Feudalism can be simply defined as: 1. fragmentation of political power; 2. public power in private hands; and 3. armed forces secured through private contract.

I find the dictionary much more accurate for defining the word:

The feudal system; a system by which the holding of estates in land is made dependent upon an obligation to render military service to the king or feudal superior; feudal principles and usages.

Or

The social system that developed in Europe in the 8th C; vassals were protected by lords who they had to serve in war.

On the otherhand, none of these are quite adequate when speaking of feudalism as an era in history. This is because feudalism was in a constant state of evolution and existed in several different forms, varying from time to time and place to place in Europe. These were part of a gradual development over a good many centuries. The results at any given time showed various forms feudalism growing side by side, most often developed without any form of or relation to chronological sequence, and thereby can be best described as a partially organized chaos.

While the word "feudal" clearly came from the German, its initial development occurred under the Franks in Gaul. But the institution of royal benefices did not exist under the Merovingian Franks. Such developments did not occur until the Carolingian era with its wide spread confiscations of church lands. Argument as to who was initially responsible for Europe's advancement or decline into feudalism, be it Charles Martel or his sons Pippin and Karlmann, makes interesting history, but I would concede that it has little to with our discussion. As is the case of your reference to Gregory VII.

As far as my statement that the church was a superstate goes, I qualified the statement. I might further add that it was you that first brought up the church's authority over matters of morals and religion. That alone qualifies it as a superstate, without mention of the lands and people it directly governed from time to time.

If I were an advocate for feudalism or monarchism (which I am not), I would be an extreme advocate of mix Ayn Rand's ethics and philosophy with anarcho capitalism as most often defined these days with in the libertarian movement. That is, I would reaffirm Frederick Bastiat's arguments on a never ending availability of cheap land as a counter to John Locke's proviso that so long as "at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others." If you take the Randian and current anarcho capitalist positions and apply them to the real world, after a generation of Randianism, you would have a mixed monarcho governmental system. After that government would be pretty much not relevant. A quick almost unnoticed switch over to anarcho capitalism would be easy and a feudal monarchist system is what you would actually have.

The best stage to begin bringing this about (at this time), is the Libertarian Party stage. Almost all of the conservative natural rightests, be they minarchist or anarchist, are already on board (they just don't know it). Even the hard core radical left wing anarchists (to include the voluntarists operating outside the party) are already advocating positions consistent with such ideals and need only be brought back into the Party with a program of mutual education. The only real significant opposition will come from utilitarians and Democratic Party leaning Libertarians. But their numbers are currently down, but rising.

As I see it, the Libertarian Party is the future battle ground. So long as no one side wins control, all sides will keep growing. When ever one side wins significant control, Party growth slows down. Should one side take total control, the Party will then die a quiet death. But I do not believe that is going to happen. Thus I see the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party bringing major changes to the country in a few decades. And then will start the real fight between you anarcho monarchists and us minarcho lefties.:=)