An AnarchObjectivist's Guide to Atlas Shrugged

[Guest Anya]

I say give me small government and let people believe what they wish.

I have a whole bunch of objections to that on practical and logical grounds. The most damning would probably Anthony de Jasay's The State. To paraphrase him, 'a capitalist state must not want to be a state'. It's an objective contradiction in means and ends. Though I agree with George Smith that Rand's ideal(ized) government without taxation approaches anarchism (in the same sense that Rothbard's private protection agencies and contract cities approach what many anarchists would consider a government). I think there is some room for accomodation, but anything rooted in the concept of the political means and the bureaucratic state is libertarian suicide. Potassium cyanide in your water.

btw - I don't know anyone who reads Kant.

I know a couple (I like his lectures better), but I was mostly making fun of Ominous Parallels.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anya,

I am not an anarchist (nor ancap), nor do I sympathize with that view. (But I try not to be snarky against ancaps as is common in O-land--many ancaps are great people.)

I am for restraining the bully potential in human nature, not ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

A constitutional republic based on individual rights infused with checks and balances on sliced and diced power is the only practical system I have seen to do that so far.

That is not libertarian suicide. That is transmuting idea into practice.

And even then, it has to be carried out by people who discuss morality regularly (and discuss it seriously), otherwise the political system goes to crap. This is why I do not oppose religion like is customary in our subculture. I don't agree with substantial parts of religions, but most of them meet at least once a week. That works well to keep reminding people to be good. We need similar large-scale routines to offer secular people. But until that happens, religion does a good job of it, especially in the storytelling department (to make abstract ideas concrete).

Morality is not a static decision. Instead, it's more like food. You don't eat once and then you're done for life. After a while, you need to eat again. And again. And again. Morality is like that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I finally read the linked blog post that opened this thread.

Funny how morality is not mentioned (except in a passing remark within a quote from AS).

But the author calls the heroes in AS "anarcho-capitalists" about fifty-gazillion times.

What is this? Argument by repeating misleading presuppositions to death?

That's a propaganda technique.

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

I have a whole bunch of objections to that on practical and logical grounds. The most damning would probably Anthony de Jasay's The State. To paraphrase him, 'a capitalist state must not want to be a state'. It's an objective contradiction in means and ends. Though I agree with George Smith that Rand's ideal(ized) government without taxation approaches anarchism (in the same sense that Rothbard's private protection agencies and contract cities approach what many anarchists would consider a government). I think there is some room for accomodation, but anything rooted in the concept of the political means and the bureaucratic state is libertarian suicide. Potassium cyanide in your water.

Not unless you consider minarchism to be a form of libertarianism (which it is).

[Guest Anya]

A constitutional republic based on individual rights infused with checks and balances on sliced and diced power is the only practical system I have seen to do that so far.

Except that's it utterly failed, led immediately to thugs like Adams and leftoid spendthrift liberal war mongers like Jefferson, resulted in a brutal civil war half a century after the founding, publically financed Humanist indoctrination, two world wars and the expansion into a world empire based on a crude mix of egalitarianism and realpolitik. America blows, dude. The Constitution and the insane bureaucratic republican state it represents, much less the inane ideology of classical liberals, are in no way to be credited with what pitiful attempts at capitalism this country has made. America is an example of capitalism and good government like being almost dead is an example of health. There is more distance between laissez-faire and 19th century America than there is between 19th century America and the USSR.

Aside from technical problems of incoherence in limited/liberal government theories, I think a major source of attachment to pseudo-divided republican superstates (which is what even the early Republic was - private government > public administration) is this self-justifying Americanist mythology that EVERYONE seems to buy into except for a handful of left libertarians like Anthony Gregory and PaleoCons at the HL Mencken society. The USA has a terrible record, and is far worse than feudal Germany in terms of respect for property and liberty. And the American Revolution was a joke to begin with. Oi.

[syrakusos]

I agree with "boring".

I had never quite appreciated the idyllic 'perfection' of Galt's Gulch, but ...

Realistically people, a bunch of libertarian nerds who are also industrial professionals could probably manage to hang out indefinitely without seriously requirement 'rights' enforced. Annoying each other too much just wouldn't be worth it. ...

I am for restraining the bully potential in human nature, not ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

A constitutional republic based on individual rights infused with checks and balances ...

Allow me to attempt a reconciliation of the apparent contradiction. In her later life Ayn Rand liked to portray herself as advocating a consistent (non-contradictory) philosophical system. Nineteen-year old Nathaniel Branden won her heart by calling her "Mrs. Logic." She probably could argue circles around him. However, her journals show changes in what she believed over time. It is also important not to confuse what she "believed" with what she advocated. We all "chew on ideas." Ayn Rand might well have intended the seeming anarchy of the Valley while at the same time recognizing that a nation needs a constitution. In The Politics, Aristotle said that the state is a union of families. A family is ruled by a master (despotes), but by its nature, a union of families cannot have that form of government. So, by 1961, Ayn Rand argued and advocated on national stages about public affairs. No one asked her how a village of 300 should be organized.

Also, allow me to suggest that how a community of "Objectivists" or "libertarians" or "capitalists" might look, we need only look at our own discussion boards. Are we not the people of Ayn Rand's novels? Based on what you have seen on discussion boards, what would happen in a society without authority, or without limits on authority?

[Samson Corwell]

I agree with "boring".

I had never quite appreciated the idyllic 'perfection' of Galt's Gulch, but ...

Realistically people, a bunch of libertarian nerds who are also industrial professionals could probably manage to hang out indefinitely without seriously requirement 'rights' enforced. Annoying each other too much just wouldn't be worth it. ...

I am for restraining the bully potential in human nature, not ignoring it and hoping it goes away.

A constitutional republic based on individual rights infused with checks and balances ...

Allow me to attempt a reconciliation of the apparent contradiction. In her later life Ayn Rand liked to portray herself as advocating a consistent (non-contradictory) philosophical system. Nineteen-year old Nathaniel Branden won her heart by calling her "Mrs. Logic." She probably could argue circles around him. However, her journals show changes in what she believed over time. It is also important not to confuse what she "believed" with what she advocated. We all "chew on ideas." Ayn Rand might well have intended the seeming anarchy of the Valley while at the same time recognizing that a nation needs a constitution. In The Politics, Aristotle said that the state is a union of families. A family is ruled by a master (despotes), but by its nature, a union of families cannot have that form of government. So, by 1961, Ayn Rand argued and advocated on national stages about public affairs. No one asked her how a village of 300 should be organized.

Also, allow me to suggest that how a community of "Objectivists" or "libertarians" or "capitalists" might look, we need only look at our own discussion boards. Are we not the people of Ayn Rand's novels? Based on what you have seen on discussion boards, what would happen in a society without authority, or without limits on authority?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

There's a damn good reason government is necessary and it's because of the law of large numbers.

[caroljane]

Eversince reading Atlas Shrugged, this "'large numbers" questioned has bothered me. The largest numbers were the looters and moochers -- what exactly happens to them when reason reigns?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's funny when people only see what they want to see.

Here's a little bit of the other side.

Human beings belong to one of the most successful species on earth. Our population keeps increasing. We have practically doubled our life spans in a very short amount of time. We have high-tech toys galore. Transportation. Information. Communication. Increased brain power. Wealth unimaginable to the ancients.

And violence? Ah yes. Scholars like Steven Pinker point out that human violence is slowly diminishing from human society (see here: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined). Or just watch the video:

Or check this out from the founders of Singularity University:

Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think

Or just watch the video:

Something is working. And it ain't feudal Germany.

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

Eversince reading Atlas Shrugged, this "'large numbers" questioned has bothered me. The largest numbers were the looters and moochers -- what exactly happens to them when reason reigns?

I meant that when you have a lot of people, the chances of having criminals goes up. It's like rolling a die 120 times--it is very likely that it will land on, say, a six at least once.

[Guest Anya]

Also, allow me to suggest that how a community of "Objectivists" or "libertarians" or "capitalists" might look, we need only look at our own discussion boards. Are we not the people of Ayn Rand's novels? Based on what you have seen on discussion boards, what would happen in a society without authority, or without limits on authority?

The State does neither. I leverages bullies and poor decisions makers. It is dysgenic, corrupting and useless. I frankly think most minarchists just don't understand the system they're 'critiquing', and pretty much none of them never put effort into the vast technical literature that deals precisely these oft-repeated criticisms. Objectivist government is half-error, half-rationalism - Bizarro Positivism.

Or, as FSK put it, minarchists are stupid.

[caroljane]

Also, allow me to suggest that how a community of "Objectivists" or "libertarians" or "capitalists" might look, we need only look at our own discussion boards. Are we not the people of Ayn Rand's novels? Based on what you have seen on discussion boards, what would happen in a society without authority, or without limits on authority?

The State does neither. I leverages bullies and poor decisions makers. It is dysgenic, corrupting and useless. I frankly think most minarchists just don't understand the system they're 'critiquing', and pretty much none of them never put effort into the vast technical literature that deals precisely these oft-repeated criticisms. Objectivist government is half-error, half-rationalism - Bizarro Positivism.

Or, as FSK put it, minarchists are stupid.

Dysgenic?

Note to \FSK, stupid is not a word to throw when one lives in a glass house. Just saying.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Or, as FSK put it, minarchists are stupid.

Well that didn't take long, did it?

That's where disagreement with fanatical ancaps and/or fanatical Objectivists always ends up.

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

Or, as FSK put it, minarchists are stupid.

Well that didn't take long, did it?

That's where disagreement with fanatical ancaps and/or fanatical Objectivists always ends up.

Michael

Rothbard and Rand didn't get along well.

[caroljane]

Anya, if you lighten up you might have some fun here.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ayn Rand might well have intended the seeming anarchy of the Valley while at the same time recognizing that a nation needs a constitution.

I've noticed in skimming several references to Rand's Ford Hall Forum answer about Galt's Gulch's lack of a government.

Here's the complete answer as transcribed by Robert Campbell on his thread "The Rewrite Squad."

The transcribed answer is followed by Robert Mayhew's bowdlerized rewrite.

Ellen

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 32:32 through 37:29

Q: Would you comment please on the difference between government that you advocate in Capitalism and the government that you find, say, in Galt's Gulch? I've heard it said by a friend of mine, why is this government, where judges and lawsuits are privately run, why is it denied to us mortals? That's how he puts it.

(Judge Lurie has trouble understanding the reference to Galt's Gulch, and asks questioner to clarify.)

Q: Why is the lack of government in Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged

A: Denied to whom?

Q: Denied to a rational, a hypothetical, rational society.

A: Because Galt's Gulch is not a society; it's private estate. It is owned by one man who selects those who are admitted so carefully, and even then they have a judge as an arbiter if anything ever came uponly nothing came up among them because they were all men sharing the same philosophy. But in a general society, God help you! If you had a society which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful.

Galt's Gulch would cons, probably have consisted ofI never named the numberlet's say, optimistically, a thousand people who represent the top genius of the world. Even then, they would agree on fundamentals, but they would never be totally identical. And the reason why they didn't need any government is because if they had disagreements, they were capable of resolving them rationally.

But now how do you project a society of multi-million nation, in which there can be every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, and every kind of morality, and you want no government? What do you think [pounding podium] I was talking about when I talked about the Middle Age? There is your no-government society, which leaves men at the mercy of the worst bandits possible, because when there is no government, every criminally inclined individual will resort to force, and every intellectually or morally inclined individual will be left helpless. Government is the absolute necessity if men are to have individual rights, for the simple reason that you do not leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals.

And your, euhh, so-called libertarian anarchism is nothing but whim worship if you refuse to see this point, because what you refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men, particularly, men of different viewsand it is proper and good that mankind at large, or as a large a section as a nationshould have different views. It's good to have different views, provided you respect each other's rights. And there is no one to guard rights except a government under strictly objective rules.

How would you like it if McGovern had his own gang of policemen and Nixon his own? And instead of presenting a campaign, they were fighting it out in the streets? What do you think that would do to you? The rest of us would be caught in the crossfire. Would that make any sense? And yet it certainly has happened throughout history.

Ahh, a rational society, or a group of rational men, is not afraid of the government they, in a proper society as existed even in this country in the beginning, a rational man doesn't have to know that a government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks any. That is the proper way for men to live, and that's the proper government.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 75-76)

Galt's Gulch is not a society; it's a private estate. It's owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in the same philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt's Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn't need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.

But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of moralityand no government. That's the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don't leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among menparticularly men of different views. And it's good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other's rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective law. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn't have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them.

A classic example of insensitivity to what Rand was actually saying. Mayhew drains some of the vehemence from this answer. More to the point, he gets rid of Rand's rejection of a "great society" in which everyone subscribes to the same philosophy. Leonard Peikoff and his followers "know" that Rand could not have expressed individualistic sentiments in 1972; she must have wanted a society in which everyone professes Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Thank you for finding that.

I'm bugged because the boring remark is not there. But it is firmly planted in my memory. It surprised me at the time, which is why it is so vivid.

I will try to find it wherever it is. (It might be from another lecture or something since I don't remember the pounding or the slant in this one.)

If not, I may have to face the fact that I'm getting older.

Urrgghhh

Michael

EDIT: Oops... I just saw that she said "If you had a society [in] which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful."

So it was dreadful, not boring. I can live with that.

Come to think of it, that is one hell of a quote. And it could very well be added to this one: "It's good to have different views, provided you respect each other's rights."

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS: Welcome to OL, Anya.

I've been so occupied with a thread I started, I've only managed to read a few of your posts, but I've been interested by what I read and am looking forward to reading more when I have a chance.

I noticed a comment you made to the effect that many critics of anarcho-capitalism aren't aware of the arguments addressing critiques. In my experience on a number of lists where debates about anarchy/minarchy come up, this is an accurate observation.

Which isn't to say that I've become convinced myself that "It could work!" (mimicking Young Frankenstein). I have the lingering feeling that minarchist proposals "are a nice idea for nice people" (I don't remember the source of that quip).

A book you might want to know about if you don't already is Jeff Riggenbach's Why American History Is Not What They Say. (I provided some feedback while that was in draft, so it's a book on the subject with which I'm familiar.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

EDIT: Oops... I just saw that she said "If you had a society [in] which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful."

So it was dreadful, not boring. I can live with that.

Come to think of it, that is one hell of a quote. And it could very well be added to this one: "It's good to have different views, provided you respect each other's rights."

Michael,

You're welcome re the quote. I searched on "Gulch" in Robert's posts. Fortunately, only 16 came up, so the right one was easy to find.

That answer as she gave it versus as Mayhew rewrote it is particularly important, since it's one place where she indicates that she not only wasn't expecting but didn't want a society in which everyone agreed.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Thanks again, this time for the link. I just bought Jeff's book. btw - You can get the PDF for free here:

Why American History is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism

He and I had a disagreement a while back over the value of A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen. I was reading it from a recommendation by Glenn Beck. (This was around the time when Glenn was really pumping the American history angle.) Jeff hated the book because of the pro-government opinions expressed in it, but he agreed that it was properly sourced, which was all I was concerned about.

See here:

I have been reading A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.

Good luck with that. I found reading that book caused uncontrollable spasms of gagging and heaving. You'll find my discussion of the loathsome thing in the last chapter of my recent book on American history.

http://mises.org/books/historynot.pdf

JR

And my response:

Jeff,

I didn't have time to read all 212 pages of your book, Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction To Revisionism, but I did read the part at the end dealing with Schweikart and Allen. Ironically, despite your "uncontrollable spasms of gagging and heaving," you actually sold me on finishing their book.

Seriously.



Here is a quote from you, p. 202:

The problem here is not, mind you, that Schweikart and Allen get their facts wrong. They don’t. Their facts are all in order, and they’re all correct. It’s their selection of the facts that is troublesome. To put the matter in a slightly different way, it’s not so much what they chose to include that is troublesome; it’s what they chose to leave out.

So you blast them on "sense of life" and promoting the view that it is good for the USA government to win wars.

I, personally, can live with reading solid facts without becoming ill because I disagree with the fact-presenter's selectivity or views. So long as I know the facts are correct, I am content. If there are not enough facts, or if the selectivity has been too slanted, I can get more facts elsewhere and build on solid knowledge, not opinions dressed up as facts (which is my true concern in my present undertaking of starting to read history).

As I try not to base my own evaluations on those of the authors I read, and Schweikart and Allen are very clear (so far in my reading) about what is their view as opposed to what is fact, I think reading this book is worth the time. Their style is dry, but light, so it's not a hard read, either.

I am so sick of the USA bashing that permeates our culture that it is refreshing to read a book presenting a view of America's exceptionalism, even if I know the book is overly-biased in that direction. I am probably more sensitive to this than most other people here because I lived 32 years in another country. So I have a much different perspective on the many wonderful things I see here that other folks take for granted.

For some reason at the time, the emotional impact did not occur to me of praising a work Jeff had just busted his ass to bash in a full-length book.

Anyway, a reviewer of the book on Amazon, Andrew Rogers, said the following (see here for the full review):

Riggenbach also gave me a new respect for something I'd always assumed was leftist propaganda, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present. Especially when contrasted, as Riggenbach does, with the neo-con A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror, Zinn now strikes me as more worth-reading than ever.

I have Zinn's book, so I will make it a project to finish Patriot, finish Riggy , and read Zinn. That should present a pretty well-rounded view. Later I will come to my own conclusions about the ideology and so forth.

Michael

[syrakusos]

Ellen, thanks, also. Nice work.

MSK -- thanks also for the links to the TED Talks. The world is getting better. I often tout Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies. Atlas Shrugged appeals to people who want "to see the end of times."

Anya -- Crime is the sine qua non problem in every society. My degrees are in criminology and social science. I work as a security guard. I have been with the "anarcho-capitalist" theories since the Tannehills and Wollstein were racing each other to finish their books in 1971. I see "anarcho-capitalism" not as the way things should be but as a model for understanding the way things are. If you sign any serious contract, you probably agree to arbitration. Even when you see security guards, you do not tally them: they outnumber government police, perhaps 2 to 1 maybe 3 to 1. Businesses choose the legal code by which their contracts are to be interpreted. If you do not like any of the government codes, you can use the Uniform Commercial Code which was created to meet a business need. The Hague Convention on Private International Law from 1899 is another example.

Sure, we have governments and probably always will. I am not an anarchist because I do not advocate that everyone do this or that no other mode is moral or that all other modes are violations of your rights, or whatever. I just look at the world and see that this is how things are. Governments have a purpose or they would not exist. Governments compete in many ways - often violent, but not always.

You probably know the left wing rant that fascism brings war. Then how could Spain and Portugal have co-existed for 40 years? I mean it is observably true that fascist Italy invaded fascist Greece and that the fascist China got support from fascist Italy for its war against fascist Japan. But, still: Spain and Portugal... I have no answer, but I know that the answers offered by others are not always.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Funny thing is, it looks like Anya, who I thought might be interested by JR's revisionism book, has left - probably before I posted the recommendation, so it's fortunate that I hadn't noticed she was gone.

The passage you quote about Schweikart and Allen had something in the wording in the draft which I thought was unclear. I don't remember what, just that I suggested a slight change. I think it was that he seemed to say both that they did and that they didn't have the facts they included right.

I didn't raise any argument over the "sense of life" thesis. I don't place store on Rand's "sense of life" idea, but JR does.

Agreements or no, I found the prose a joy to read. He has a smoothness of style which puts me in mind of a velvet silken stream of poured chocolate.

Ellen

[syrakusos]

Michael,

Funny thing is, it looks like Anya, who I thought might be interested by JR's revisionism book, has left ...

She changed her visible name, and deleted her details. They come and go.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Boy did she (if it is a she and if Anya is really her name). Just look at her profile. Her email is now fuck@you.com.

At least she's good for a chuckle.

People like that don't want discussion.

They want compliance.

And if they can't get it, they get pissed.

OL is not a good venue for preachers looking for a flock or followers seeking a master.

(I intend to keep it that way. Call me an asshole. )

Michael

[Selene]

Not at all, I was suspicious of it from the get go.

It would not answer what University it went to, or, any specific questions.

Just needed a soapbox and not comfortable when folks did not adhere to it's declarations.