Rand Critics


Recommended Posts

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. ( I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. ( I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Jordan

Your father is more correct than he likely realizes he is.

On one level, yes, all ideologies will present the case in a skewed manner. Any person who is devoted to honestly assessing the objective nature of reality (rather than licking the boots of the higher-ups at the ARI, say) will attempt to collect ALL of the pertinent facts involved, which can only be done by studying the views of both sides of an issue. Which is why totalitarian regimes will ban works criticizing them. It might get people to think about reality in a different way. Hell, let's be frank, it might get people thinking at any rate, which is always bad for the peddlers of pull who depend upon compulsion and irrationality (note the ways in which authoritarians attack academia and, on occasion, the very concept of higher learning in general)

On another level, though, you can never fully understand what you believe until you can understand what other people believe-- and why they don't believe what you do. This is crucial. This dialectical manner of thinking destroys lazy thinking patterns and internalized bromides. It forces you to begin to reason. Instead of merely accepting arguments, you begin to ask: by what standard is this true? It unearths the foundations of a line of thought. It is these foundations that are crucial. It plucks the roots of thought from the soil of mind and allows you to observe, analyze, and dissect.

With that said:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

And although it isn't a criticism of Objectivism per se, you might want to check out "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden, a book critical of Rand in many ways written by a longtime associate of Rand.

See if these help.

There isn't a whole lot of extended academic criticism of Rand because academia has generally brushed her off as an unimportant figure in twentieth-century literature.

Read the forums. Many people (including me), though generally in agreement in Rand, find her thought lacking in many ways. Overt Rand-bashing isn't welcomed (this is, after all, an Objectivist forum), but respectful, rational criticism of Objectivism is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both very much.

Just curious, why does academia brush her off? And another thing I heard someone else mention, why don't I ever hear of Objectivists accomplishing great things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan,

Rand was an original thinker and an artist, not a scholar. And she was abrasive. One of the best rational critiques of her problems with academics was written my Gary Merrill. I will quote the whole thing here since the original has disappeared from the web. (The copy from where I obtained the text below is posted here.)

Comments by Gary Merrill

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta

From: Gary Merrill

Subject: Rand's work: style and quality

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:22:06 GMT

Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

Before I begin discussing the substance of any of Rand's ideas, I would like to consider some questions pertaining to the form and style of her writings. In part, this is to give an account of why academics typically have a certain response to these writings, and in part it is to set the stage for analyses that are yet to come. The questions I ultimately want to address are these:

1. What is it that differentiates Rand's writing from the writing of academics and professional philosophers?

2. Is this a significant difference, or is it merely a difference in style that can be (and ought to be) ignored in order to benefit from the deeper content of those writings?

3. What is the quality of scholarship in these writings, and does (and ought) this affect the manner in which the writings are approached and viewed?

I have already (in a previous posting) made some detailed remarks concerning Rand's style in The Virtue of Selfishness. My comments now are addressed specifically to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (hereafter, IOE). This is an appropriate work for such an analysis since it is offered as one of Rand's major works in pure philosophy (in which she "offers a startingly original solution to the problem that brought about the collapse of modern philosophy"). It is offered as a "brilliantly argued, superbly written work" as well. (The quotes are from the back cover of the book.)

What sorts of things impress a professional philosopher about this work? First, we discover that we have a book that (excluding the index) is 306 pages in length. Closer examination shows that Rand's direct and verifiable contribution to this amounts to slightly fewer than 87 pages. There is in addition a 38 page article by Peikoff, 4 pages of preface by Peikoff and Binswanger, and a 179 page appendix of "workshops" on Rand. We will need later to consider the status of this appendix in Rand scholarship. For now, let it suffice to observe that it was not written, edited, or reviewed by Rand. So having bought a 314 page book, we immediately discover (to my surprise, at least) that we have only 87 pages of Rand. This is pretty odd, but not necessarily bad. (Among other things, it means that in reading the original source of Randian ideas, we have much less to read.) It appears at least a little deceitful that the cover proclaims Ayn Rand as the author in a monstrous font while "Edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff" occurs in a much smaller font much further down the page. But we can ignore this oddity.

When we look into Rand's 87 pages of text, what do we find that stylistically differentiates Rand's work from what might be called "standard scholarship". First, any number of positions are referred to without there being any clue as to who is claimed to hold these positions. These are the following (numbers in parentheses are page numbers in which the positions are mentioned):

·Nominalism (47, 53, 74) ·Pragmatism (77) ·Conceptualism (53) ·Linguistic Analysis (50, 77, 78) ·Realism (53 and elsewhere) ·Mysticism (60, 79, and elsewhere) ·Irrationalism (60)

Sweeping and very strong claims are made concerning these various positions, and yet the reader is offered not a clue as to exactly what the position is nor who has held the position that is being criticized. Since Rand is offering these as failed attempts at solving certain problems, and since she is claiming that her purported solution succeeds where these fail, it is (to say the least) irritating to the reader that he has absolutely no way of objectively judging her criticisms of the positions nor the success of her own solution. For example, a familiarity with the positions being criticized may well introduce the reader to certain classic problems that Rand's solution faces as well. Without such familiarity the reader remains ignorant. Since Rand herself characterizes the dependence of argument on such ignorance as argument from intimidation, it is especially peculiar that she has so studiously failed to be specific. Either she is unable to cite specific references to support her criticisms, or else she is unwilling to do so. This is simply a mark of poor scholarship and both by the standards of professionals and her own criteria it is poor and deceitful argumentation.

At some points she goes so far as to provide vague references. For example, on pp. 50-51 she offers us:

As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they "kinda knew" the meaning of the concept of "number" ...

Now I'm hardly a Russell expert, but at one time I had read quite a bit of Russell, and I did once serve on the dissertation board of a Ph.D. candidate whose dissertation was entitled "Russell's Theory of Number". I can't imagine what she is talking about here. But worse – she offers me no way of determining what she is referring to and no way to determine whether her "criticism" (if we can call it that) of Russell is well founded. In addition, how can this be an illustration of anything since there isn't enough detail to tell what is being referred to? (To be sure, Russell may have perpetrated any number of things – ban the bomb, for example – but what these may have had to do with the concept of number is rather up in the air.)

Rand mentions Kant repeatedly (he seems to be the guy she loves to hate), but there is absolutely nothing that is specific. She never quotes Kant directly, but when she apparently feels a need to justify her view of Kant she instead quotes from a book published in 1873 by Henry Mansel whom she describes as "a Kantian". Again, I am not an expert on Kant, but who is this guy Mansel? I can find him mentioned in none of the histories of philosophy I have, and he is not mentioned in the fairly extensive bibliography on Kant in Lewis Beck's 18th-Century Philosophy. So direct reference to Kant is replaced by reference to "a Kantian" (and a very obscure one at that). Why do this? Why not show how Kant himself held the position that is being attacked? There is no justification for this sort of thing. Again, poor scholarship. (I do not, by the way, believe that even the quote from Mansel supports Rand's view of Kant. But I will not argue that point now.)

These sorts of things would not be so bad, though they are bad, were it not for the fact that she so frequently gets things wrong. There is the business above concerning Russell, for example. There is the claim (p. 59) that "modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice." (no substantiation or reference is provided). There is the claim (p. 52) that "It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist". (Any of you Aristotle scholars want to wade in here with a brief account of particulars vs. concretes?) And none of this comes with even a hint of specific attribution that would allow a reader to evaluate it. The closest she gets is along the lines of (p. 60) "For example, see the works of Kant and Hegel." Now that really narrows it down!

So what is it that differentiates the writing of Rand from those of classic academics and professional philosophers? It is simply that her work has every appearance of an extended and multi-faceted straw man argument that fails to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship. It has all the marks of what in science would be pseudo-science. If there is such a thing as pseudo-philosophy, this is it.

Nor is this brand of scholarship restricted to Rand herself. Her closest followers embrace it as well. Consider Peikoff's article, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". This article, said to have been published first in 1967, contains the sweeping claim (p. 89) that "It [the analytic-synthetic dichotomy] is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher – pragmatist, logical positivist, analyst, and extentialist alike." Well, consider please the following:

But, for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith. (W. V. Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism").

My copy of From a Logical Point of View has an initial copyright date of 1953. The original paper appeared in The Philosophical Review in 1951. Look folks, it simply is not possible for anyone who was aware of what was happening in Anglo-American philosophy in the 50's and early 60's to claim with any honesty what Peikoff does in the quote above. So was Peikoff dishonest or ignorant? Take your pick. He had to be one or the other. If one were forced to select a single paper of Quine's that had the most impact on contemporary philosophy it would have to be "Two Dogmas". But Peikoff appears ignorant of both it and its impact on the field. Further, it appears that Peikoff's article appears only in the second edition of IOE, published in 1990. Certainly by this time someone should have noticed "Two Dogmas" and at least conceded in a footnote that Peikoff's claim was unsupportable both now and when it originally was made. Peikoff, like Rand, goes to great lengths to claim (I would say "make a case", but no genuine evidence is ever introduced) that he is proposing a novel approach where all other philosophers have failed. In the case of the analytic/ synthetic dichotomy I've got news for Peikoff: It was done 15 years earlier, and it was done better.

Is this work of Rand and Peikoff "brilliantly argued" and "superbly written"? In a word, no.

This treatment is getting a bit lengthy. Let me wrap it up. I believe that I have addressed the point 1 above that I set out to answer. Now 2 and 3 need to be considered. Is the egregiously poor scholarship found in Rand and her primary followers merely a difference in style that we can ignore? I'm afraid that I do not think so. It is so systematic and so deeply embedded in her work that it is virtually impossible to separate her "ideas" (as some have put it) from the either poor or deceitful manner in which they are expressed. This is particularly so since Rand repeatedly offers her own "solution" to problems that others have failed to solve and this solution is at least partly explained and justified by contrasting to the "failed" solutions. Much of her time is devoted to claims against others and to claims concerning both the novelty and success of her own approach. I believe I have shown that her treatment is either ignorant and incompetent or dishonest and deceitful. The question is whether, based on reading several of Rand's works, it is worthwhile to devote further study to these and other works of hers. In order to make this decision we would have to believe that when she turns from the exposition and criticism of other positions to her own ideas she abandons the attitude and techniques with which she has approached the work of others. This is not a reasonable thing to believe.

Regardless of this conclusion I am prepared to consider directly some of "Rand's ideas", but I will leave that for another posting. I see that I never did consider the status of the appendix as I said I would. This posting is too long as it is. If anyone really wants to see what I think of the appendix, it will have to be in a separate posting as well.

Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and ToolsDivision] SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael for posting this. It reminds me of something NBranden once said - he was surprised at just how little Rand had actually read. I don't recall the source, nor was it meant as an insult. It is my interpretation that Rand was a massive thinker rather than an experimenter or scientist looking into reality. This is great, but I suppose adds some disconnection with other intellectuals in the culture. She stood alone, for better or worse.

Funny that this should come up. I was reading IOE and thinking about Rand's style of writing this morning. She was very offensive against many people (Communism for example), and I think it was because of her experience in Russia. Her opinions come out. It doesn't bother me, but I was thinking it was one reason her writing is so abrasive - it was her worldview. I don't think it makes her thoughts incorrect... I think there is just an emotional valence to presentation of her ideas that are colored by her experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Michigan! Good post.

Chris' "...Rand was a massive thinker rather than an experimenter or scientist looking into reality." Precisely. I am sure that some here have read Marx? I personally prefer Groucho, but what is your evaluation of him as a cohesive philosopher?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan:

This is a criticism of Rand that you and I both believe is worthy of debate - first time I have seen this also. Would love thoughts on or off forum.

The following is my response to the article "Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life" by Leonard Peikoff, viewable at the following address: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/prolife.html

Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" features a character named "John Galt." Among the many utterances of John Galt, he points to the law of identity: "A is A." On the issue of abortion, the inconsistency of the A.R.I. becomes apparent. A fetus is neither dog nor cat; it is neither bird nor horse; it is nothing if it is not human. Does it exist? Yes or no? Is it imprinted with every genetic code necessary to develop into a full human? Yes or no? Is the fact of its stage of development a qualifier acting upon its "right to life?" Yes or no?

Mr. Peikoff states: "We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."

Ludicrous indeed. More ludicrous is to compare an infant to an adult human. After all, an infant is merely at a stage of development that portends the potentiality of humanity [as it is defined by implication in this article] , however, as described in "John Galt's" explanation of the world-view of an infant, it is some significant distance, intellectually, as well as physically, from achieving what he [Peikoff] would term 'humanity.' Does this mean that women have the right to abort, retroactively, their newborn offspring? One would hope not, but in essence, this very lack of morality is that which has led young women to assume that dumping their newborn into trash receptacles, or leaving it in the toilet of a high school ladies restroom at a dance is perfectly natural [moral].

This, of all things I have read and understood of objectivism, as advocated by A.R.I., is the single most inconsistent area of the Institute's intellectual endeavors. Human life is human life. "A is A." Mr. Peikoff would lead a reader to believe that an infant developed instantaneously, at the moment of birth, into a "real human being." This defies all known logic. Rather than simply stating the facts, perhaps what is needed is a further demonstration of them:

Mr Peikoff claims that the embryo "exists as part of the woman's body." True or false? False. It is dependent upon the woman's body, but the real test of it as an integral part of her body is whether it can successfully be removed without harm to her, and implanted in another woman without harm to either the surrogate or the embryo. The answer is "yes" in each instance. Can it, at this stage, exist independent of some woman's body, other than by freezing? No. That does not, however, make it part of a woman's body. A tapeworm will not live but a few minutes outside the digestive tract of the animal it has infested. Would Mr. Peikoff likewise claim that it is therefore a "part" of the animal's body?

Surely, a tapeworm is even more primitive than a three-month-old embryo. Therefore, primitive though an organism may be, by virtue of its genetic uniqueness, or by fact of its stage of development, it is not part of any other, dependent though it may be.

Is Mr. Peikoff's argument then one of dependency? If an organism is dependent, does it not then have a right to life? What of the aforementioned infant? It is totally dependent upon some intervention on its behalf for feeding and other necessary care. It can no more sustain itself, outside the realm of human intervention, than the embryo. Neither can this absurdity be the cause of the lack of a right to life on the part of the embryo.

Mr. Peikoff then says: "If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students."

I would suggest to Mr. Peikoff most strenuously that he "check his premises." A corpse is not equivalent to a living human, developing or not. It is an adulteration of logic, the results of which have been seen, as it is by the same [il]logic that Hitler's Dr. Mengele tortured countless thousands of adult and juvenile "undead corpses." The shockingly inane aspect of Mr.Peikoff's statement is the comparison of a developing life to an absence of life. It is not "equal logic."

Again, the embryo/zygote/fetus/infant is either human, or it is not. It is not potentially human, but is in fact human, entirely, by the laws of nature. If it is not human, what is it? Are we to avoid the law of identity and simply state that it does not exist? It is as though by avoiding identification, Mr. Peikoff seeks to avoid the moral consequence of destroying a human. After all, what is a "human being?" Human means that it shares all the fundamental characteristics of a human, or Homo Sapien. An embryo has the full genetic set of instructions to be exactly that, and nothing less. Being means that it exists. It is, therefore, a "human being." It can be no other.

This conclusion must therefore redirect the debate to the "right to choose," and that which it entails. My understanding of a right is as follows: A right is a natural entitlement that confers no positive obligation upon another.

It should be obvious that no embryo/zygote/fetus can "consent" to anything, but what abortion demands is the death of another human, albeit developing. This is a positive obligation on par with any ranting of the altruistic looters: One should die, or at least forfeit its "right to life," for the convenience of another.

Now consider the "right to choose," "choice" in this context always meaning the abortion of a human life, at some stage of development. The mother is to do the choosing, yet she has already undertaken a choice. Her pregnancy is the consequence of that choice. By allowing abortion, Dr. Peikoff would allow women to ignore reality, breaking the natural link between cause and effect: If you have sex, without regard to contraceptives, during the period immediately before, during, or after ovulation, the likely result is pregnancy. After all, we do know how those little buggers are conceived. Women cannot claim ignorance. They cannot claim, in repetition of Francisco d'Anconia's scornful mocking of the "woman with the earrings:" "I didn't know it."

Additionally, John Galt tells his radio audience that we are never to initiate the use of force. What is the destructive extraction of an embryo from the uterus of its mother? Non-violent protest? Surely, A.R.I. and its principals cannot argue that abortion is non-violent. It is the premeditated destruction of a human life, albeit in a developmental stage.

Let us reconsider this premise given my definition of a 'right.' If we accept my definition, which we must, it being correct, what is the "natural entitlement" of an embryo? It may be defined as being carried to full term, in an unmolested state. Does the embryo place a positive obligation upon another? No. Like any other right, it actually only requires non-interference. Of course, on the preposterously rare occasion of a pregnancy that does indeed threaten the physical well-being of the mother, this then becomes a positive obligation of sorts, perhaps demanding that she lay down her life to deliver. Only in this instance is abortion even possible, morally speaking. Here, she acts in self-defense. Any other instance negates the woman's duty to herself, as well as the "right to life" of her offspring, asserting that she may evade the a known consequence of her action by committing an act of violence.

Is this not the creed of the altruists? That the innocent should forfeit their lives, knowingly or not, by consent, or not, to the whim of the guilty? What is her guilt? She is guilty of trying to separate cause from effect. Isn't abortion the culmination of the pursuit of the undeserved and the impossible: Choice without consequence?

Mr. Peikoff then goes on to say: "Being a parent is a profound responsibility - financial, psychological, moral - across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that - as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence." Realizing the "profound responsibility" involved, why does Mr. Peikoff wish to absolve the woman of a responsibility she volunteered, by her actions, to undertake?

"To a woman who does not want it?" If it is a death sentence, in some perverse manner, it is a death sentence self-imposed. This, however, raises another question: Shouldn't the father of this child have the equal ability to choose, not to keep it, but to abort it? Perhaps to this man, it is likewise a "death sentence."

Woe be to our beloved Mr. Peikoff, who has stooped to the level of emotionally inflammatory balderdash. In this one sentence, by the use of the term "death sentence," he has managed to inject anything but logic and objectivity into his argument. By this standard, no man should ever be forced to pay child support. If he doesn't want the "death sentence," he should likewise be able to avoid it by saying "no, I won't pay child support," at the least, and maximally, by saying "abort it."

Of course, this demonstrates the absolute inconsistency, and therefore, the unsupportable nature, of this entire argument. If the man is "condemned," by virtue of the act of sex, to be a parent irrespective of his wishes, and the woman is not, what is the name of the inconsistency with which we have corrupted our philosophy? Moreover, and shockingly, Mr. Peikoff equates the creation of a new human with a death sentence, all through sex(and its natural consequence.) Is this the teaching of Ayn Rand, or Mr. Peikoff?

Again, he writes: "Sentencing a woman to sacrifice..." Again, who imposes the "sentence" that is pregnancy? To read Mr.Peikoff's words, it is as though women routinely walk down the street and "zap!!!," by some holy bolt of lightning, and without her consent or contribution, is struck pregnant [dead].

If this is the closest version of objectivity Mr.Peikoff attains, it is a weak and adulterated relative to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. That means, obviously, it is wrong. She allowed no adulteration that I have discerned, and while I have yet to find any remarks by Ayn Rand on this subject, I would, were they in agreement with those of Mr. Peikoff, refute it just as fully, and cite it as the one failing of her advocacy of Objectivism.

If it is the morality of death you wish to oppose, you must first reject it, fully. The comparison of pregnancy to a death sentence is precisely the sort of emotional hyperbole that should never be uttered by one claiming Objectivism as his philosophy.

Further defiling himself, Mr. Peikoff concludes "Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life - lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings." Choosing to speak only for myself, I am offended at the indolence of this remark. I love "real human beings," having been one since conception. Real equals "exists." Genetics don't lie. What I would be as an infant, give or take only my mother's interference, (or suitable lack thereof,) was decided at the time of that conception. One does not become, in Mr. Peikoff's words, a "real human," at any other date. Would Mr. Peikoff suggest a line of demarcation for his assessment of "real?" At the end of the thirteenth week of pregnancy? Why not the following day? What could be the grand difference? What about the date of birth? Will Mr. Peikoff absurdly contend that what we see born on the moment of the delivery is significantly different than the minute before? Was it endowed by some mystical government document [birth certificate] with its unalienable rights only as it passed out of the birth canal? Or would Mr. Peikoff assign some mystical significance to the power of government in defining the right to life? Is it an absolute, or is it not? Is A really A, or is it not?

This leads me to a question that must be asked of Mr. Peikoff: What is the root of this emotional and inconsistent support of abortion? Would a lack of support make of you a hypocrite? Why? Surely, by your emotional attachment, so apparent in this article, you have a personal reason. Name it. Did you pay for one? Did you urge one? I would hope not, but were it so, I could readily understand, while condemning it, the unwillingness on your part to recognize your objective inconsistency.

Lastly, the following is attached, as information obviously considered essential, to the end of Mr. Peikoff's essay: "Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand."

To be correct, it should state "was the foremost authority on Objectivism [until he typed out this absurd article]." My response will be posted, in full, on my own web site, to which you will receive a hyperlink upon its publication. In short, "Move over, Beethoven.[Mr. Peikoff]" Or, in a more uniquely American phrase, "There's a new sheriff [foremost authority] in town."

"Do you hear me Dr. Robert Stadler [Leonard Peikoff]?" asked "John Galt."

"Who is Mark La Vigne?"

1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan:

This is a criticism of Rand that you and I both believe is worthy of debate - first time I have seen this also. Would love thoughts on or off forum.

The following is my response to the article "Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life" by Leonard Peikoff, viewable at the following address: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/prolife.html

Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" features a character named "John Galt." Among the many utterances of John Galt, he points to the law of identity: "A is A." On the issue of abortion, the inconsistency of the A.R.I. becomes apparent. A fetus is neither dog nor cat; it is neither bird nor horse; it is nothing if it is not human. Does it exist? Yes or no? Is it imprinted with every genetic code necessary to develop into a full human? Yes or no? Is the fact of its stage of development a qualifier acting upon its "right to life?" Yes or no?

Mr. Peikoff states: "We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."

Imam Leonard's grasp of cell biology is on a par with his grasp of physics and mathematics. Virtually every cell in an unborn's body after the first few months is differentiated. All the organs are in place even if not fully formed.

L.P's scientific pronouncements are without a doubt inferior and based largely on prejudice and ignorance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan,

Rand was an original thinker and an artist, not a scholar. And she was abrasive. One of the best rational critiques of her problems with academics was written my Gary Merrill. I will quote the whole thing here since the original has disappeared from the web. (The copy from where I obtained the text below is posted here.)

Comments by Gary Merrill

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta

From: Gary Merrill

Subject: Rand's work: style and quality

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:22:06 GMT

Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

Before I begin discussing the substance of any of Rand's ideas, I would like to consider some questions pertaining to the form and style of her writings. In part, this is to give an account of why academics typically have a certain response to these writings, and in part it is to set the stage for analyses that are yet to come. The questions I ultimately want to address are these:

1. What is it that differentiates Rand's writing from the writing of academics and professional philosophers?

2. Is this a significant difference, or is it merely a difference in style that can be (and ought to be) ignored in order to benefit from the deeper content of those writings?

3. What is the quality of scholarship in these writings, and does (and ought) this affect the manner in which the writings are approached and viewed?

I have already (in a previous posting) made some detailed remarks concerning Rand's style in The Virtue of Selfishness. My comments now are addressed specifically to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (hereafter, IOE). This is an appropriate work for such an analysis since it is offered as one of Rand's major works in pure philosophy (in which she "offers a startingly original solution to the problem that brought about the collapse of modern philosophy"). It is offered as a "brilliantly argued, superbly written work" as well. (The quotes are from the back cover of the book.)

What sorts of things impress a professional philosopher about this work? First, we discover that we have a book that (excluding the index) is 306 pages in length. Closer examination shows that Rand's direct and verifiable contribution to this amounts to slightly fewer than 87 pages. There is in addition a 38 page article by Peikoff, 4 pages of preface by Peikoff and Binswanger, and a 179 page appendix of "workshops" on Rand. We will need later to consider the status of this appendix in Rand scholarship. For now, let it suffice to observe that it was not written, edited, or reviewed by Rand. So having bought a 314 page book, we immediately discover (to my surprise, at least) that we have only 87 pages of Rand. This is pretty odd, but not necessarily bad. (Among other things, it means that in reading the original source of Randian ideas, we have much less to read.) It appears at least a little deceitful that the cover proclaims Ayn Rand as the author in a monstrous font while "Edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff" occurs in a much smaller font much further down the page. But we can ignore this oddity.

When we look into Rand's 87 pages of text, what do we find that stylistically differentiates Rand's work from what might be called "standard scholarship". First, any number of positions are referred to without there being any clue as to who is claimed to hold these positions. These are the following (numbers in parentheses are page numbers in which the positions are mentioned):

·Nominalism (47, 53, 74) ·Pragmatism (77) ·Conceptualism (53) ·Linguistic Analysis (50, 77, 78) ·Realism (53 and elsewhere) ·Mysticism (60, 79, and elsewhere) ·Irrationalism (60)

Sweeping and very strong claims are made concerning these various positions, and yet the reader is offered not a clue as to exactly what the position is nor who has held the position that is being criticized. Since Rand is offering these as failed attempts at solving certain problems, and since she is claiming that her purported solution succeeds where these fail, it is (to say the least) irritating to the reader that he has absolutely no way of objectively judging her criticisms of the positions nor the success of her own solution. For example, a familiarity with the positions being criticized may well introduce the reader to certain classic problems that Rand's solution faces as well. Without such familiarity the reader remains ignorant. Since Rand herself characterizes the dependence of argument on such ignorance as argument from intimidation, it is especially peculiar that she has so studiously failed to be specific. Either she is unable to cite specific references to support her criticisms, or else she is unwilling to do so. This is simply a mark of poor scholarship and both by the standards of professionals and her own criteria it is poor and deceitful argumentation.

At some points she goes so far as to provide vague references. For example, on pp. 50-51 she offers us:

As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they "kinda knew" the meaning of the concept of "number" ...

Now I'm hardly a Russell expert, but at one time I had read quite a bit of Russell, and I did once serve on the dissertation board of a Ph.D. candidate whose dissertation was entitled "Russell's Theory of Number". I can't imagine what she is talking about here. But worse – she offers me no way of determining what she is referring to and no way to determine whether her "criticism" (if we can call it that) of Russell is well founded. In addition, how can this be an illustration of anything since there isn't enough detail to tell what is being referred to? (To be sure, Russell may have perpetrated any number of things – ban the bomb, for example – but what these may have had to do with the concept of number is rather up in the air.)

Rand mentions Kant repeatedly (he seems to be the guy she loves to hate), but there is absolutely nothing that is specific. She never quotes Kant directly, but when she apparently feels a need to justify her view of Kant she instead quotes from a book published in 1873 by Henry Mansel whom she describes as "a Kantian". Again, I am not an expert on Kant, but who is this guy Mansel? I can find him mentioned in none of the histories of philosophy I have, and he is not mentioned in the fairly extensive bibliography on Kant in Lewis Beck's 18th-Century Philosophy. So direct reference to Kant is replaced by reference to "a Kantian" (and a very obscure one at that). Why do this? Why not show how Kant himself held the position that is being attacked? There is no justification for this sort of thing. Again, poor scholarship. (I do not, by the way, believe that even the quote from Mansel supports Rand's view of Kant. But I will not argue that point now.)

These sorts of things would not be so bad, though they are bad, were it not for the fact that she so frequently gets things wrong. There is the business above concerning Russell, for example. There is the claim (p. 59) that "modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice." (no substantiation or reference is provided). There is the claim (p. 52) that "It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist". (Any of you Aristotle scholars want to wade in here with a brief account of particulars vs. concretes?) And none of this comes with even a hint of specific attribution that would allow a reader to evaluate it. The closest she gets is along the lines of (p. 60) "For example, see the works of Kant and Hegel." Now that really narrows it down!

So what is it that differentiates the writing of Rand from those of classic academics and professional philosophers? It is simply that her work has every appearance of an extended and multi-faceted straw man argument that fails to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship. It has all the marks of what in science would be pseudo-science. If there is such a thing as pseudo-philosophy, this is it.

Nor is this brand of scholarship restricted to Rand herself. Her closest followers embrace it as well. Consider Peikoff's article, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". This article, said to have been published first in 1967, contains the sweeping claim (p. 89) that "It [the analytic-synthetic dichotomy] is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher – pragmatist, logical positivist, analyst, and extentialist alike." Well, consider please the following:

But, for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith. (W. V. Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism").

My copy of From a Logical Point of View has an initial copyright date of 1953. The original paper appeared in The Philosophical Review in 1951. Look folks, it simply is not possible for anyone who was aware of what was happening in Anglo-American philosophy in the 50's and early 60's to claim with any honesty what Peikoff does in the quote above. So was Peikoff dishonest or ignorant? Take your pick. He had to be one or the other. If one were forced to select a single paper of Quine's that had the most impact on contemporary philosophy it would have to be "Two Dogmas". But Peikoff appears ignorant of both it and its impact on the field. Further, it appears that Peikoff's article appears only in the second edition of IOE, published in 1990. Certainly by this time someone should have noticed "Two Dogmas" and at least conceded in a footnote that Peikoff's claim was unsupportable both now and when it originally was made. Peikoff, like Rand, goes to great lengths to claim (I would say "make a case", but no genuine evidence is ever introduced) that he is proposing a novel approach where all other philosophers have failed. In the case of the analytic/ synthetic dichotomy I've got news for Peikoff: It was done 15 years earlier, and it was done better.

Is this work of Rand and Peikoff "brilliantly argued" and "superbly written"? In a word, no.

This treatment is getting a bit lengthy. Let me wrap it up. I believe that I have addressed the point 1 above that I set out to answer. Now 2 and 3 need to be considered. Is the egregiously poor scholarship found in Rand and her primary followers merely a difference in style that we can ignore? I'm afraid that I do not think so. It is so systematic and so deeply embedded in her work that it is virtually impossible to separate her "ideas" (as some have put it) from the either poor or deceitful manner in which they are expressed. This is particularly so since Rand repeatedly offers her own "solution" to problems that others have failed to solve and this solution is at least partly explained and justified by contrasting to the "failed" solutions. Much of her time is devoted to claims against others and to claims concerning both the novelty and success of her own approach. I believe I have shown that her treatment is either ignorant and incompetent or dishonest and deceitful. The question is whether, based on reading several of Rand's works, it is worthwhile to devote further study to these and other works of hers. In order to make this decision we would have to believe that when she turns from the exposition and criticism of other positions to her own ideas she abandons the attitude and techniques with which she has approached the work of others. This is not a reasonable thing to believe.

Regardless of this conclusion I am prepared to consider directly some of "Rand's ideas", but I will leave that for another posting. I see that I never did consider the status of the appendix as I said I would. This posting is too long as it is. If anyone really wants to see what I think of the appendix, it will have to be in a separate posting as well.

Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and ToolsDivision] SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000

Michael,

I am chuckling at Gary Merrill's criticism not because it doesn't have points, but because it indicates a bias of method. Contemporary analytic philosophic method typically doesn't ask: is this true?, but is this well argued and well sourced?

First, there was no one in 1966 or even until the 1990's that could say much about the truth or falsity of the claims in IOE. Of course, IOE wasn't proven or even terribly "well argued" in the conventional sense. Rand stuck her neck out and said something definitive about about the human conceptual faculty. It's up to us to evaluate it against the alternatives, the facts of reality and the internal structure of her system.

Contrast this with the awe (deservedly so but with blinders on) that much of the academic world has of Nozick, who would brilliantly argue one side of an argument. Then a few years later would brilliantly argue against his own conclusions.

This reminds me of physicists who complained about the inaccessibility of Feynman diagrams. After all, they weren't "proven or sourced". Well, it took Freeman Dyson 4 years to put them on mathematically solid footing. Why didn't Feynman do it? Well, it's possible that he couldn't, but it's also possible that it would have been a colossal waste of his time. But think of what would have happened if Feynman had just sat on it: the world would have been deprived of an integral part of its current language for describing electron-electron interactions.

It's too bad Rand didn't have the luxury of not using polemics. The academic world would have had a field day with no response from her. Rand knew the response her work would get from academia and acted accordingly.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad Rand didn't have the luxury of not using polemics.

Jim,

Do you really believe Ayn Rand would have chosen the path of Kumbaya to present her theories if she felt that had been an option?

(Indeed it was, but that is another issue.)

Heh.

She was a dramatic artist way before she was a philosopher. Conflict is the soul of drama. Being contentious was in her DNA.

EDIT: Contrary to the idea of "not using polemics" being a luxury for Rand, I sincerely believe it would have been sheer torture for her, starting with the word "boring."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad Rand didn't have the luxury of not using polemics.

Jim,

Do you really believe Ayn Rand would have chosen the path of Kumbaya to present her theories if she felt that had been an option?

I am sure there are middle ways.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad Rand didn't have the luxury of not using polemics.

Jim,

Do you really believe Ayn Rand would have chosen the path of Kumbaya to present her theories if she felt that had been an option?

(Indeed it was, but that is another issue.)

Heh.

She was a dramatic artist way before she was a philosopher. Conflict is the soul of drama. Being contentious was in her DNA.

EDIT: Contrary to the idea of "not using polemics" being a luxury for Rand, I sincerely believe it would have been sheer torture for her, starting with the word "boring."

Michael

Ha, Ha! No, I don't believe she would have, especially in her novels. But the touchiness with which intellectuals have received her works reflects more on them than it does on her.

Incidentally, there is much more to this than just dramatic artistry. It's synthetic thinking:

What would happen if I simply say what everyone is thinking, but no one has the bad manners to say out loud?

What would go wrong if an argument had a bad premise and how?

What would go wrong in the world if certain things happened and why?

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

If she took the middle ways or some other way, we might not be having this discussion on this forum on this day.

The crazy Russian lady spoke to a crazy Italian man and I am a better person, with a better life because of her ideas.

Moreover, I have brought oodles of folks to her ideas and will continue to do so.

Therefore, for me, the polemical Petrogradian person works for me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Michael,

I am chuckling at Gary Merrill's criticism not because it doesn't have points, but because it indicates a bias of method. Contemporary analytic philosophic method typically doesn't ask: is this true?, but is this well argued and well sourced?

First, there was no one in 1966 or even until the 1990's that could say much about the truth or falsity of the claims in IOE. Of course, IOE wasn't proven or even terribly "well argued" in the conventional sense. Rand stuck her neck out and said something definitive about about the human conceptual faculty. It's up to us to evaluate it against the alternatives, the facts of reality and the internal structure of her system.

Contrast this with the awe (deservedly so but with blinders on) that much of the academic world has of Nozick, who would brilliantly argue one side of an argument. Then a few years later would brilliantly argue against his own conclusions.

This reminds me of physicists who complained about the inaccessibility of Feynman diagrams. After all, they weren't "proven or sourced". Well, it took Freeman Dyson 4 years to put them on mathematically solid footing. Why didn't Feynman do it? Well, it's possible that he couldn't, but it's also possible that it would have been a colossal waste of his time. But think of what would have happened if Feynman had just sat on it: the world would have been deprived of an integral part of its current language for describing electron-electron interactions.

It's too bad Rand didn't have the luxury of not using polemics. The academic world would have had a field day with no response from her. Rand knew the response her work would get from academia and acted accordingly.

Jim

I read this Merrill piece when it was in its original site, and my conclusion then was as is now. Like you stated, there was no acknowledgement on the substance of ITOE and whether it was true. Moreover, the analysis of the A-S dichotomy by Quine focused on synonymy; his was an argument from nonessentials. Whether the whole philosophical world gooh-ed and gaah-ed over its trivial dismissal of the dichotomy is a judgment on contemporary philosophy's fixation on irrelevance. Merrill did not see any of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Huemer has some interesting remarks on Objectivism, though I think a philosophical sophisticate could answer him:

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm

Nozick's "On the Randian Argument" (1970; anthologized in one of his books, as I recall, though probably not available online) is something of a classic in the category. Eric Mack published a reply a year of two later in The Personalist.

Walker's book is a disgrace. The best critique I know of is Bradford's in Liberty, aptly titled "Ayn Rant":

http://web.archive.org/web/20010421040431/...0bradford2.html

For a critique of Walker's efforts as an architecture / design critic, see http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--24-Wright_Rand.aspx (Book Notes 1999, at the very end of the article).

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Rand's assertions, unaligned with academic mainstream, actually made them more accessible to the average person. If she had counched all her arguments in academic words and definitions, she would have made her work only accessible to academic philosophers, and that would have truly been a waste of her time. So she "ranted" against collectivists, positivists, etc. but those groups themselves are irrelevent to her arguments. It was really the ideas that words such as "positivist" and "collectivist" represented that she was arguing against. Who cares whether the idea aligns perfectly with the word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Jerome Tucille still around and has anyone read this sequel to It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand?

http://www.amazon.com/Still-Begins-Ayn-Ran..._sim_b_1#reader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to Objectivist Living, Jordan. I discovered Rand at 18, and for me her philosophy was the breath of life. I always remember it in just that phrase.

I was never uncritical of Rand’s ideas, but near the beginning, I tended to see developments on the political scene (such as Richard Nixon’s imposition of wage and price controls) as if they were the unfolding in real life of the story of Atlas Shrugged. The collapse of the economy and the country were around the corner, I expected. (Ha!) Another erroneous way of looking at things that I had in those first months was that those of us who had found Rand’s philosophy were the producers as in Atlas. We were the ones keeping the world turning, and it was a serious question to consider whether we should go on strike. Fortunately, I did not go down that silly path. I pursued a career, a romantic relationship, and happiness in this country as it is. The greatest benefit Rand has brought to people is not political, but personal.

Criticisms of Rand’s Ethical Theory

Stephen

PS

I just remembered a correction my father gave to me during the period I was telling him about Rand’s philosophy, the new philosophy I was largely embracing. I had come around to supposing that virtually all of the technological innovation in the world had come from private enterprise. He knew better because of his personal history. He had grown up in the Depression, was part of the defense production at Ford during WWII, (then into the Navy, but shipping out was halted when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima), then worked as a civilian for the Air Force. He had seen a great amount of technological innovation come from government in connection with national defense.

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the vocabulary here is over my head, but I'm keeping my dictionary at hand and I'm sure it is just a matter of time spent in personal research for me. Thank you all for the comments and the welcome, your articles and links will be a great place for me to start.

Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. ( I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Jordan

A problem with finding critics of Objectivism is that 1) many misunderstand the philosophy (many misinterpret Rand as being a moderate realist in epistemology when she was in fact a conceptualist), and 2) many of her critics are just as emotionally zealous as the Randroid crowd.

Louis Pojman, who wrote a page on Rand in an undergrad philosophy textbook, does both. 1 in the case of her metaethical argument and 2 in the case of calling Randians "her acolytes" and using lots of loaded language. Also, Pojman himself is a rationalist who thinks that if he can concoct any extremely unlikely lifeboat scenario that invalidates the principle, then the principle has no applicability whatsoever (i.e. he has no respect for context).

I consider myself an Objectivist (of the Open System variety) but I disagree with Rand on a few issues. I disagree with how she denies any role for disvalues in aesthetics (i.e. she would consider 'horror art' or 'dark art' to be 'believing that evil is metaphysically significant' and hence indicative of a 'malevolent universe premise,' please correct me if I am misinterpreting her case). Additionally I believe her gender essentialism is inconsistent with her epistemology, and her issues with homosexuality were inconsistent with facts. Plus, I disagree with her condemnation of anarcho-capitalism. I believe Rand's 'context argument' against market anarchy is incorrect (i.e. the idea that a concept of individual rights can only arise within the context of a state). However, I further believe that Rand's 'ultraminimal state' is impractical in today's context (I think the best we can get, without very significant improvement in the moral stature of most human individuals, is a Hayekian minarchy).

However these are relatively minor disagreements. I accept the essentials of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. ( I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Jordan

A problem with finding critics of Objectivism is that 1) many misunderstand the philosophy (many misinterpret Rand as being a moderate realist in epistemology when she was in fact a conceptualist), and 2) many of her critics are just as emotionally zealous as the Randroid crowd.

Louis Pojman, who wrote a page on Rand in an undergrad philosophy textbook, does both. 1 in the case of her metaethical argument and 2 in the case of calling Randians "her acolytes" and using lots of loaded language. Also, Pojman himself is a rationalist who thinks that if he can concoct any extremely unlikely lifeboat scenario that invalidates the principle, then the principle has no applicability whatsoever (i.e. he has no respect for context).

I consider myself an Objectivist (of the Open System variety) but I disagree with Rand on a few issues. I disagree with how she denies any role for disvalues in aesthetics (i.e. she would consider 'horror art' or 'dark art' to be 'believing that evil is metaphysically significant' and hence indicative of a 'malevolent universe premise,' please correct me if I am misinterpreting her case). Additionally I believe her gender essentialism is inconsistent with her epistemology, and her issues with homosexuality were inconsistent with facts. Plus, I disagree with her condemnation of anarcho-capitalism. I believe Rand's 'context argument' against market anarchy is incorrect (i.e. the idea that a concept of individual rights can only arise within the context of a state). However, I further believe that Rand's 'ultraminimal state' is impractical in today's context (I think the best we can get, without very significant improvement in the moral stature of most human individuals, is a Hayekian minarchy).

However these are relatively minor disagreements. I accept the essentials of the system.

Rand didn't believe in a minimal state, but a limited state. She clearly argued that government should exist and serve basic functions such as contract enforcement, national defense, etc. The military in an Objectivist nation could be huge and expensive, if the threat was significant enough to warrant it. The state has certain roles to play and oughtn't step outside those roles. So Rand's disdain for market anarchy is perfectly rational, and I basically share her opinions, in that regard.

My problem is that she seems to want to have her cake and eat it as well. In this case, she wanted limited government, but she didn't want taxation. She tried justifying this by saying that private donations could fund a modern state, but her arguments in this regard were half-baked at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle;

"Rand didn't believe in a minimal state, but a limited state. She clearly argued that government..."

I have not re-read some of her original essays on government.

I am not sure government equals "state" in her mind. I know that she was very supportive of the basic structure of uncentralized power and admired the separation paradigm of the Founders.

Additionally, she was directly aware that WWII was massively funded by the voluntary purchase of bonds, e.g., the entire cost of WWII was $288 billion [$3.6 Trillion adjusted to today] and $185.7 billion was raised voluntarily. That is pretty impressive to me being in the 60% range.

"The last time the United States issued war bonds was during World War II, when full employment collided with rationing, and war bonds were seen as a way to remove money from circulation as well as reduce inflation.

Issued by the U.S. Government, they were first called Defense Bonds. The name was changed to War Bonds after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Known as debt securities for the purpose of financing military operations during war time, the bonds yielded a mere 2.9 percent return after a 10-year maturity.

Living in the United States with a median income during World War II meant earning about $2,000 a year. Despite the war’s hardships, 134 million Americans were asked to purchase war bonds to help fund the war. Stamps also could be purchased, starting at 10 cents each, to save toward the bond.

U.S. War Bonds poster

The first Series ‘E’ U.S. Savings Bond was sold to President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. The bonds sold at 75 percent of their face value in denominations of $25 up to $10,000, with some limitations. The war bonds actually were a loan to the government to help finance the war effort.

The War Finance Committee was in charge of supervising the sale of all bonds, and the War Advertising Council promoted voluntary compliance with bond buying. The work of those two organizations produced the greatest volume of advertising in U.S. history. In the name of defense of American liberty and democracy, and as safe havens for investment, the public was continually urged to buy bonds.

An emotional appeal went out to citizens by means of advertising. Even though the bonds offered a rate of return below the market value, it represented a moral and financial stake in the war effort. The advertisements started with radio and newspapers, then later added magazines to reach the masses. The bond campaign was unique in that both the government, as well as private companies, created the advertisements.

Those who contributed advertising space felt they were doing even more for the war effort; then there were organizations that made up their own war bond advertisements to reflect their patriotism. The government recruited New York’s best advertising agencies, famous entertainers, and even used familiar comic strip characters to further their appeal to America. In their advertisements, the New York Stock Exchange urged purchasers not to cash in their bonds. More than a quarter of a billion dollars worth of advertising was donated during the first three years of the National Defense Savings Program. Massive advertising campagins used any means of media possible, and the campaign was a huge success. Word spread quickly; polls indicated after only one month that 90 percent of those responding were aware of war bonds. Bonds became the ideal channel for those on the home front to contribute to the national defense.

Bond rallies were held throughout the country with famous celebrities, usually Hollywood film stars, to enhance the advertising's effectiveness. Free movie days were held in theaters nationwide with a bond purchase as the admission. Such popular Hollywood stars as Greer Garson, Bette Davis and Rita Hayworth completed seven tours in more than 300 cities and towns to promote war bonds. The "Stars Over America" bond blitz, in which 337 stars took part, surpassed its quota and netted $838,540,000 worth of bonds.

One promotional cardboard had slots for 75 quarters, to equal $18.75. When it was full, one could turn it in to the post office for a $25 war bond that matured in 10 years. Local clubs, organizations, movie theaters and hotels also did their part with their own advertisements.

Then there was the Civilian D-Day on June 6th, 1944, when thousands of ads flew from the sky over Chicago to capture the attention and hearts of potential contributors. Even the Girl Scouts became involved with each scout donating one stamp. Those stamps, starting at 10 cents each, were then traded into the national organization for the purchase of war bonds.

Norman Rockwell created a series of illustrations in 1941 that became a centerpiece of war bond advertising. The Saturday Evening Post reproduced and circulated them, much to the public's approval. While Rockwell was the most notable artist of war bonds, Irving Berlin was the most celebrated composer. Famous for his "God Bless America," he wrote a song entitled "Any Bonds Today?" and it became the theme song of the Treasury Department’s National Defense Savings Program. The famous Andrew Sisters were among the primary performers of this historic song.

One of the most successful single events was a 16-hour marathon radio broadcast on CBS, during which nearly $40 million worth of bonds were sold. The marathon featured singer Kate Smith, famous for her rendition of "God Bless America." Patriotism and the spirit of sacrifice could be expressed with war bond purchases. Millions jumped aboard the war bond effort.

The sports world did its part as well, holding special football and baseball games with a war bond as the price of admission. An unusual baseball game took place in New York City with the New York Yankees, the New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers. Each of the teams came to bat six times in the same nine-inning game. Their final score was the Dodgers 5, Yankees 1 and the Giants 0, and the U.S. Government was $56,500,000 richer in war bond sales.

At the end of World War II, January 3, 1946, the last proceeds from the Victory War Bond campaign were deposited into the U.S. Treasury. More than 85 million Americans — half the population — purchased bonds totaling $185.7 billion. Those incredible results, due to the mass selling efforts of helping to finance the war, have never since been matched."

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand didn't believe in a minimal state, but a limited state. She clearly argued that government should exist and serve basic functions such as contract enforcement, national defense, etc. The military in an Objectivist nation could be huge and expensive, if the threat was significant enough to warrant it.

By "minimal state" I mean the Nozick model, where the state has a monopoly on political power yet is funded exclusively by payment for government services rendered, and the state only provides the services you mentioned (enforcing contracts, national defense and guarding individual rights). Rand clearly believed in this model of government. By "minimal" I was not attempting to place a specific mark on the absolute size of a correct minimal state. You are right, if the threat was sufficient, there would be justification for a relatively large, expensive military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me).

My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate.

I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism.

Hazard,

Your father's advice is excellent. "Audiatur at altera pars" applies not only in the courtroom, but every time one wants to get the compelete picture of an issue.

In a nutshell:

1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert.

What exactly was it you were philosophically thirsting for?

2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature)

Do do believe Objectivsm encourages independent thinking? If yes, in what way?

3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. (I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist)

To check one's premises is an excellent advice by Rand. This involves checking her own premises too. That's where I would start.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now