Why Rand has no theory of Rights


sjw

Recommended Posts

Gentleman:

A right is defined for this argument as_______________________________.

Could each of you just humor me and fill in the blank.

Adam

I divide all human action into two mutually-exclusive and exhaustive categories: "A right is a human action that does not interfere with the non-interfering actions of another human being; a crime is a human action that interferes with the non-interfering actions of another human being."

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand your point about where Rand's individualism "falls down." Her theory of rights per se is impeccably individualistic.

- Her theory of government usurps consent.

A theory of government is a specific application of a theory of rights. It is scarcely coincidental that most leading libertarian anarchists became anarchists after first embracing Rand's theory of rights.

- Her "theory" of IP (really she offers no principled reasoning whatsoever here) usurps creations of a second inventor.

Again, the subject of intellectual property is a particular application of a broader theory of rights. Many libertarians, past and present, have agreed with Rand's basic approach to rights and yet disagreed over the subject of intellectual property, both in regard to copyrights and patents. This debate goes back many years. Jefferson criticized the notion of intellectual property with his metaphor of a candle. Lysander Spooner, like Rand, defended both copyrights and patents, whereas his friend Benjamin Tucker rejected both. Murray Rothbard defended copyrights but rejected patents. I don't think either can be justified, or at least I haven't been able to justify them.

- Her notion of rights is that they "subordinate society to moral law" -- the technical interpretation of this isn't individualistic at all. Although I would admit that she didn't mean what she said, I wonder if we shouldn't take her literally anyway, since that is how she told us to interpret other philosophers.

You lost me here. All that Rand means is that people should respect the rights of other people, and that we have the right to use force in self-defense when our rights are violated. This has been a commonplace maxim in libertarian thought for centuries.

- Her notion of the ideal social system, capitalism, fails to recognize the individual right to form alternative social systems (as in for example the Amish, but we could multiply examples without limit)

The fact that Rand regarded a capitalistic system as "ideal" doesn't mean that she denied the right of people to form voluntary communities that are not, strictly speaking, capitalistic. Can you cite even one passage where she denied this right? I can't think of any. In any case, if the pooling of resources is voluntary, then there is certainly nothing in Rand's theory of rights that would prohibit such an arrangement.

Many years ago I had an interesting conversation with the economist and historian Benjamin Rogge, who had done a lot of work on 19th century "utopian" communities in America. He noted that most of these communities did not last very long, owing to their tremendous economic disadvantages. This was especially true of the secular communities, such as those established by "Owenites" like Josiah Warren. Rogge speculated that members of these secular communities, lacking strong religious bonds, were simply unwilling to endure the economic hardships. But those people with common religious beliefs had motives in addition to purely economic ones, so some of their communities survived.

In this sense, Rand was correct. Capitalism is indeed the "ideal" form of a free society, insofar as people care about economic prosperity and wish to interact with an ideologically diverse population.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your point about where Rand's individualism "falls down." Her theory of rights per se is impeccably individualistic.

- Her theory of government usurps consent.

A theory of government is a specific application of a theory of rights. It is scarcely coincidental that most leading libertarian anarchists became anarchists after first embracing Rand's theory of rights.

I would say they became anarchists after first becoming inspired by Rand's vision of independence and (as you put it first I think) self-sovereignty. I was likewise inspired. I do not know what *theory* you are referring to. That is why I'm asking about how exactly you excise her "theory" from what she actually wrote. If there is a way to objectively say what her theory actually is apart from her applications I do not know what that would be but it is certainly relevant to this thread.

- Her notion of rights is that they "subordinate society to moral law" -- the technical interpretation of this isn't individualistic at all. Although I would admit that she didn't mean what she said, I wonder if we shouldn't take her literally anyway, since that is how she told us to interpret other philosophers.

You lost me here. All that Rand means is that people should respect the rights of other people, and that we have the right to use force in self-defense when our rights are violated. This has been a commonplace maxim in libertarian thought for centuries.

What do you think the referent of "moral law" is? I think it is a far broader referent than merely "rights." So what do you think it means to subordinate society to your moral laws? But anyway, I agree on what Rand meant. It's not a quibble per se, because it is egregious philosophical slip by Rand, but it is almost a quibble.

I'll address your last point in a separate post.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, speaking of "leading libertarian anarchists", I have a hard time considering you as a true anarchist when you write this:

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government." [emphasis mine].

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory of government is a specific application of a theory of rights. It is scarcely coincidental that most leading libertarian anarchists became anarchists after first embracing Rand's theory of rights.

I would say they became anarchists after first becoming inspired by Rand's vision of independence and (as you put it first I think) self-sovereignty. I was likewise inspired.

I knew the leading libertarian anarchists, such as Murray Rothbard and Roy Childs, very well, I had countless conversations with them, and I can assure that they agreed in virtually every particular with Rand's theory of rights. They objected to Rand's defense of government because they believed that it contradicts her non-initiation of force principle, which is a key aspect of her rights theory.

In the modern movement, the single most important and influential anarchistic essay was Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand (1969), by Roy Childs. This was the essay that converted me, Randy Barnett, and many other Objectivist-types to anarchism. Roy's key point is that a monopolistic government must initiate, or threaten to initiate, force and is therefore incompatible with Rand's theory of rights. This has remained the crux of the standard objection to Randian minarchism.

I do not know what *theory* you are referring to. That is why I'm asking about how exactly you excise her "theory" from what she actually wrote. If there is a way to objectively say what her theory actually is apart from her applications I do not know what that would be but it is certainly relevant to this thread.

I am referring to the theory of rights that Rand presents in "Man's Rights" and in other essays. Do you really not understand the difference between the basic principles of a theory and the application of that theory to specific issues? This isn't rocket science.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

------------------------------------------------------------

George, speaking of "leading libertarian anarchists", I have a hard time considering you as a true anarchist when you write this:

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government." [emphasis mine].

Shayne

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are mistaken Shayne; that is classic anarchist-speak.

So what is "George" doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

------------------------------------------------------------

George, speaking of "leading libertarian anarchists", I have a hard time considering you as a true anarchist when you write this:

"I defend anarchism, or society without the State, because I believe that innocent people cannot be forced to surrender any of their natural rights. Those who wish to delegate some of their rights to a government are free to do so, provided they do not violate the rights of dissenters who choose not to endorse their government." [emphasis mine].

Shayne

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are mistaken Shayne; that is classic anarchist-speak.

So what is "George" doing here?

I don't know, "Rodney." What are "you" doing here?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Rand regarded a capitalistic system as "ideal" doesn't mean that she denied the right of people to form voluntary communities that are not, strictly speaking, capitalistic. Can you cite even one passage where she denied this right? I can't think of any. In any case, if the pooling of resources is voluntary, then there is certainly nothing in Rand's theory of rights that would prohibit such an arrangement.

I side with the Randians on what Rand meant -- she was a minarchist not an anarchist. Now if you are right and they are wrong, then you're right here too. Again, I think it's important to know how you're extracting what you call Rand's "theory." It seems to me that you're really forming your own theory and then calling it Rand's. I formed my own and called it my own.

Anyway, on those grounds she definitely would not have permitted voluntary communities as that would be "gang warfare" (in her terms).

Many years ago I had an interesting conversation with the economist and historian Benjamin Rogge, who had done a lot of work on 19th century "utopian" communities in America. He noted that most of these communities did not last very long, owing to their tremendous economic disadvantages. This was especially true of the secular communities, such as those established by "Owenites" like Josiah Warren. Rogge speculated that members of these secular communities, lacking strong religious bonds, were simply unwilling to endure the economic hardships. But those people with common religious beliefs had motives in addition to purely economic ones, so some of their communities survived.

In this sense, Rand was correct. Capitalism is indeed the "ideal" form of a free society, insofar as people care about economic prosperity and wish to interact with an ideologically diverse population.

Rand defines: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Emphasis on "property rights"; de-emphasis on a bunch of other crucially important individual rights. The very word "Capitalism" is a reference to industrial property rights, i.e., the property rights of big businessmen. Being strictly technical and giving full weight to all of man's rights, this is a *biased* definition, toward a system known as fascism. Which, interestingly, is the system that is smothering the United States, that has had a system most people used "Capitalism" to refer to.

A "free society" is not based on "capitalism", it is based on the full recognition of *all* of man's rights, including his property rights, but also all the rest in equal share.

I don't think Rand intended bias, but that is what it is.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

don't know, "Rodney." What are "you" doing here?

Ghs

===============================================

Hi George.

I do know what I'm doing here. I am promoting the Objectivist way.

If you are not an anarchist I did say I was sorry. If you are an anarchist, the question does remain, what are you doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Rand regarded a capitalistic system as "ideal" doesn't mean that she denied the right of people to form voluntary communities that are not, strictly speaking, capitalistic. Can you cite even one passage where she denied this right? I can't think of any. In any case, if the pooling of resources is voluntary, then there is certainly nothing in Rand's theory of rights that would prohibit such an arrangement.

I side with the Randians on what Rand meant -- she was a minarchist not an anarchist. Now if you are right and they are wrong, then you're right here too. Again, I think it's important to know how you're extracting what you call Rand's "theory." It seems to me that you're really forming your own theory and then calling it Rand's. I formed my own and called it my own.

Nothing I wrote is inconsistent with Rand's minarchism. As for my "extracting" Rand's theory, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Her theory of rights is very clear.

Anyway, on those grounds she definitely would not have permitted voluntary communities as that would be "gang warfare" (in her terms).

Only if they are anarchistic. I said nothing about anarchistic communities. I referred to voluntary communities that are not "capitalistic," strictly speaking. Such communities might have a voluntary form of communal ownership, etc. To say that Rand would have opposed anarchistic communities is merely to say that Rand opposed anarchism. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Rand defines: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Emphasis on "property rights"; de-emphasis on a bunch of other crucially important individual rights.

The fundamental right in any free society is the property right known as "self-ownership" or (as Locke put it) "property in one's person."

The very word "Capitalism" is a reference to industrial property rights, i.e., the property rights of big businessmen. Being strictly technical and giving full weight to all of man's rights, this is a *biased* definition, toward a system known as fascism.

This isn't what Rand meant by "capitalism" at all. Your quasi-Marxian definition is "biased" because it is your conception, not Rand's. I thought we were talking about Rand's ideas. You presented Rand's definition above. Read it. Where does she mention "industrial" property rights?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

don't know, "Rodney." What are "you" doing here?

Ghs

===============================================

Hi George.

I do know what I'm doing here. I am promoting the Objectivist way.

If you are not an anarchist I did say I was sorry. If you are an anarchist, the question does remain, what are you doing here?

Well, "Rodney," are anarchists not permitted on OL? This would come as news to me, considering how many times I have debated the subject on OL.

On this thread I have been defending Rand's theory of rights. Do you have a problem with that, "Rodney"?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to the theory of rights that Rand presents in "Man's Rights" and in other essays. Do you really not understand the difference between the basic principles of a theory and the application of that theory to specific issues? This isn't rocket science.

Ghs

For the reasons I stated above, I don't think Rand's ideas meet the standard of "theory," although her thoughts are certainly pregnant with many implications. To answer your question, yes, I certainly understand the difference between a theory and its applications.

Applications are illustrative of theory. Where she didn't explicitly present a theory (she didn't name any principles governing the creation of government -- as a theory of rights certainly must), we have to abstract. In any case, if you leave out the applications you don't like, what you are left with is even less a theory than what she had.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if they are anarchistic. I said nothing about anarchistic communities. I referred to voluntary communities that are not "capitalistic," strictly speaking. Such communities might have a voluntary form of communal ownership, etc. To say that Rand would have opposed anarchistic communities is merely to say that Rand opposed anarchism. But we already knew that, didn't we?

So Rand permits voluntarily forming communities -- except the kind she doesn't permit. I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about.

The fundamental right in any free society is the property right known as "self-ownership" or (as Locke put it) "property in one's person."

So I guess you are your own "capital". Really I think this is an odd foundation upon which to put individual rights. Property is something you have a right to; you yourself are not property.

This isn't what Rand meant by "capitalism" at all. Your quasi-Marxian definition is "biased" because it is your conception, not Rand's. I thought we were talking about Rand's ideas. You presented Rand's definition above. Read it. Where does she mention "industrial" property rights?

My understanding is that Marx was the first one who coined the term "Capitalism." (You would know far better than I so I defer to you). If so, don't blame me if it's a Marxist word. Blame people who use it. But if not, don't blame me either: I note that you haven't addressed the *fact* that in Rand's definition, property is emphasized, and other rights are de-emphasized. Or perhaps you have addressed it, by citing a theory of individual rights that Rand did not actually put forth (nowhere does she talk about "property right to self").

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

don't know, "Rodney." What are "you" doing here?

Ghs

===============================================

Hi George.

I do know what I'm doing here. I am promoting the Objectivist way.

If you are not an anarchist I did say I was sorry. If you are an anarchist, the question does remain, what are you doing here?

Well, "Rodney," are anarchists not permitted on OL? This would come as news to me, considering how many times I have debated the subject on OL.

On this thread I have been defending Rand's theory of rights. Do you have a problem with that, "Rodney"?

Ghs

I think Rodney is lost. He meant to stop off at ARI and missed the right exit.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mistaken Shayne; that is classic anarchist-speak.

Is it? I can't say I've talked to every anarchist but I have talked to some, and they bristle with the idea of someone forming a government. They can't divest themselves of the idea that it's not government unless it usurps consent, whereas George leaves that open, saying so long as the government leaves him alone, he's OK with it.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to the theory of rights that Rand presents in "Man's Rights" and in other essays. Do you really not understand the difference between the basic principles of a theory and the application of that theory to specific issues? This isn't rocket science.

Ghs

For the reasons I stated above, I don't think Rand's ideas meet the standard of "theory," although her thoughts are certainly pregnant with many implications. To answer your question, yes, I certainly understand the difference between a theory and its applications.

Applications are illustrative of theory. Where she didn't explicitly present a theory (she didn't name any principles governing the creation of government -- as a theory of rights certainly must), we have to abstract. In any case, if you leave out the applications you don't like, what you are left with is even less a theory than what she had.

Shayne

I am going to say this once more and then ignore any more repetitions of your silly remarks.

Rand had a theory -- and a well-developed theory -- of rights, as presented in "Man's Rights," "Collectivized Rights," and other essays. The fact that you may disagree with Rand's theory or regard it as inadequate does not make it a non-theory. She wrote a lot more on rights than, say, Thomas Jefferson ever did, but it would be absurd to say that Jefferson didn't have a theory of rights.

I gather that you are a fan of Thomas Paine. Okay, so do you agree with Paine's opposition to the private ownership of land, as expressed in Agrarian Justice? If so, how can you possibly separate Paine's theory of rights from his position on land ownership?

Why you insist on pushing this nonsense is beyond me. You could make every point you wish to make without it. In my experience, people who resort to this kind of malarkey are attempting to score cheap polemical points. Ayn Rand didn't even have a theory of rights, but I, genius that I am, do.

Well, bully for you.

Now, if you have specific objections to Rand's theory of rights, let's hear them. I'm tired of dealing with this Mickey Mouse stuff.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mistaken Shayne; that is classic anarchist-speak.

Is it? I can't say I've talked to every anarchist but I have talked to some, and they bristle with the idea of someone forming a government. They can't divest themselves of the idea that it's not government unless it usurps consent, whereas George leaves that open, saying so long as the government leaves him alone, he's OK with it.

Shayne

I thought you were a big fan of alternative social arrangements. If people can form a voluntary government without initiating force, or the threat of force, against any unwilling people, then what's the problem?

I said nothing about merely leaving me alone.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were a big fan of alternative social arrangements. If people can form a voluntary government without initiating force, or the threat of force, against any unwilling people, then what's the problem?

I said nothing about merely leaving me alone.

Ghs

I think there's a miscommunication, I don't say there's a problem in your view, except that you seem to call it "anarchy" when others form governments.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George:

"Well, "Rodney," are anarchists not permitted on OL? This would come as news to me, considering how many times I have debated the subject on OL.

On this thread I have been defending Rand's theory of rights. Do you have a problem with that, "Rodney"?

Ghs

===================================================================================

Are anarchists not permitted on OL? Well, I'm not the site owner so you would have to address that question to someone else- I asked what you were doing here. Perhaps you have debated that subject before on OL, but I wasn't here. I was beginning to worry about myself a bit, but hey, since anarchists are welcome I guess my tenure here is secure :-) I say you go before I do.

You say you're defending Rand's "rights" in the thread. Well, I'm defending Objectivism in the whole website. Take that you dirty rat.

So what are you doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to say this once more and then ignore any more repetitions of your silly remarks.

...

Ayn Rand didn't even have a theory of rights, but I, genius that I am, do.

...

Yes, I thought I came up with a theory, I am So Sorry. I apologize for being a nobody who thinks he has one, I lay down prostrate at your far better intellect, writing skills, history with the various movements, literary accomplishments, and other achievements, and beg your lordship to for forgiveness. I know not what I do, I am only a peasant who would like his rights to be respected. I should have prayed at the Altar of Ayn Rand and never have ever thought that what she did was completely and fully sufficient, that any errors must be mine, that any blame for lack of progress in securing rights must be everywhere else but in anything She said, the Glorious Angel of Rights. I should have found my place, preaching the Glory of her Wisdom as far as I can, not ever endeavoring to question Her Magnificent Unrepeatable Genius.

I shall now Burn the Evil that is my Book, retire to the Library for Ten Years Penance by reading anything I can find that is Not Mine.

Forever Humbled,

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental right in any free society is the property right known as "self-ownership" or (as Locke put it) "property in one's person."

So I guess you are your own "capital". Really I think this is an odd foundation upon which to put individual rights. Property is something you have a right to; you yourself are not property.

You need to do some reading in the history of political thought. "Property," as used by Locke and for many years after Locke, referred primarily to moral dominion over something, i.e., the right to use and dispose of something. Thus writers like James Madison objected to Sabbatarian laws as a violation of "property in one's time," and the phrase "property in one's conscience" was commonly used in defense of religious freedom.

When Rand spoke of "private property," she meant external things that are owned. But she sometimes used "property" simpliciter in the broader, classical sense, e.g.: "The right to property is the right of use and disposal." And: "The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual...."

Moreover, although Rand normally uses the phrase "right to life," she sometimes uses the self-ownership terminology, e.g, when she refers to man as "a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to say this once more and then ignore any more repetitions of your silly remarks.

...

Ayn Rand didn't even have a theory of rights, but I, genius that I am, do.

...

Yes, I thought I came up with a theory, I am So Sorry. I apologize for being a nobody who thinks he has one, I lay down prostrate at your far better intellect, writing skills, history with the various movements, literary accomplishments, and other achievements, and beg your lordship to for forgiveness. I know not what I do, I am only a peasant who would like his rights to be respected. I should have prayed at the Altar of Ayn Rand and never have ever thought that what she did was completely and fully sufficient, that any errors must be mine, that any blame for lack of progress in securing rights must be everywhere else but in anything She said, the Glorious Angel of Rights. I should have found my place, preaching the Glory of her Wisdom as far as I can, not ever endeavoring to question Her Magnificent Unrepeatable Genius.

I shall now Burn the Evil that is my Book, retire to the Library for Ten Years Penance by reading anything I can find that is Not Mine.

Forever Humbled,

Shayne

When did I ever say or suggest that you don't have a theory of rights? That was not my point at all. My objection was to your claim that Ayn Rand did not have a theory of rights. She had a theory of rights, and you have a theory of rights.

You need to read more carefully.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't what Rand meant by "capitalism" at all. Your quasi-Marxian definition is "biased" because it is your conception, not Rand's. I thought we were talking about Rand's ideas. You presented Rand's definition above. Read it. Where does she mention "industrial" property rights?

My understanding is that Marx was the first one who coined the term "Capitalism." (You would know far better than I so I defer to you). If so, don't blame me if it's a Marxist word. Blame people who use it. But if not, don't blame me either: I note that you haven't addressed the *fact* that in Rand's definition, property is emphasized, and other rights are de-emphasized. Or perhaps you have addressed it, by citing a theory of individual rights that Rand did not actually put forth (nowhere does she talk about "property right to self").

By "nowhere," do you mean as in Rand's statement that man is "a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products"? (My italics.) Or were you thinking of some other meaning of "nowhere"?

The term "capitalist" was in common use long before Marx came along. As for the word "capitalism," I recall running across it many years ago in a pre-Marxian writer (early 19th century), though I don't recall his name offhand. (It was probably one of the so-called "Ricardian Socialists.")

Did Marx ever use the word "capitalism"? I have read a lot of Marx, but having never encountered his use of the word, I did some research on this around ten years ago. Some historians claim that Marx never used the word, whereas others disagree -- though I have never encountered a specific reference by the latter group.

Joseph Schumpeter was not alone among economic historians in arguing that the word is so vague, and has been used in so many different ways, that it should be avoided whenever possible. But Rand was very specific about her use of the word, and that's what we are dealing with here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Marx was the first one who coined the term "Capitalism." (You would know far better than I so I defer to you). If so, don't blame me if it's a Marxist word. Blame people who use it. But if not, don't blame me either: I note that you haven't addressed the *fact* that in Rand's definition, property is emphasized, and other rights are de-emphasized. Or perhaps you have addressed it, by citing a theory of individual rights that Rand did not actually put forth (nowhere does she talk about "property right to self").

By "nowhere," do you mean as in Rand's statement that man is "a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products"? (My italics.) Or were you thinking of some other meaning of "nowhere"?

"Property right" refers to a specific concept in Rand's parlance. "Owns his person" refers to a different concept.

The term "capitalist" was in common use long before Marx came along. As for the word "capitalism," I recall running across it many years ago in a pre-Marxian writer (early 19th century), though I don't recall his name offhand. (It was probably one of the so-called "Ricardian Socialists.")

Did Marx ever use the word "capitalism"? I have read a lot of Marx, but having never encountered his use of the word, I did some research on this around ten years ago. Some historians claim that Marx never used the word, whereas others disagree -- though I have never encountered a specific reference by the latter group.

Joseph Schumpeter was not alone among economic historians in arguing that the word is so vague, and has been used in so many different ways, that it should be avoided whenever possible. But Rand was very specific about her use of the word, and that's what we are dealing with here.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/is-the-name-%E2%80%9Ccapitalism%E2%80%9D-worth-keeping-part-i

"The first and second points are interrelated. The modern usage of “capitalism” dates back before Marx, but it was Marx who popularized it. One will look in vain through the works of the great classical-liberal writers of the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth centuries, such as Adam Smith and the other Scots, for the word “capitalism” to describe the system they favored. Such use by its proponents is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon.

Because the term was coined by opponents, it’s not surprising that it is etymologically loaded. Usually the suffix “ism” refers to “belief in” something. In the case of capitalism and socialism, we can see how looking at the words this way reveals the bias. Its name suggests that “capitalism” is a system in which “capital” is the central feature and motive force. Those who support such a system seem to “believe in” the power of capital, which further suggests that capital’s interests are the ones that are, and perhaps should be, served by the system."

My dislike of the term "Capitalism" is shared by others it seems. But this is just a word. I also do not like her *definition*, which as I have said, stresses *property* above all other rights. This is skewed, in spite of your gallant defense of Rand. In this defense you seem to want to imply that she put property rights at the foundation of everything (like the anarcho-capitalists do), I don't think she actually did, she only did it in the definition (so her definition violates her own rules of definition). Elsewhere she lists freedom of speech as being so important that if that were violated, it might be time for a revolution. She doesn't say this about property rights.

Shayne

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