Dennis Hardin

Comrade Sonia is distressed because the producer is working with David Kelley. Well, that was predictable. How could it possibly survive without her? Comrade Sonia then proclaims “open Objectivism” to be an “abject failure” and, as proof, points to the “flowering of new and innovative work” at ARI. An example of this “new and innovative work’ would undoubtedly include the course she is teaching at this year’s summer seminar on “The Rational Egoist’s Approach to Luck.” Quoting from the seminar’s website: "By focusing on the ethics of luck, this course offers fresh insight into the practice of the Objectivist virtues and reveals common errors about luck that hinder us in our pursuits.” Since Objectivist metaphysics excludes the idea of “pure chance,” no doubt she will adopt the Aristotelian perspective that defines chance events as the concurrence of two independent causal chains. She will say that a rational person does everything he can to prepare for such an opportunity and optimize the likelihood that it will occur. The irrational will sit around wallowing in self-pity and complaining about how crappy life is. Objectivists have been anticipating the film version of Atlas Shrugged for half a century, and, regardless of any misgivings, should be eagerly awaiting the release of the film and its potential impact, particularly in view of the Tea Party movement and the recent resurgence of Ayn Rand’s popularity. The rational approach would be to seize this opportunity, hope for the best, and make the most of it. But Comrade Sonia fears that the movie could do “more harm than good” in terms of spreading Objectivism. “The fewer the people who see it, the better,” she says. The last thing this woman has any business lecturing Objectivists about is a rational approach to luck. “New and innovative”? Yeah, right. Evidently Peikoff’s tiresome, morbid pessimism is contagious.

I wonder if the copy editor over at Variety would be available to play Kip Chalmers.

George, Due to the irksome demands of my corporeal self for that biological phenomenon known as sleep, I will have to limit the current response to your first question: I guess I thought I had addressed this in a prior post, which I will repeat here: And, needless to say, we got more of the same from Nixon forward. Altruism has served as the primary ethical justification for most all of the statist interventions during the last century. Your fascinating commentary on the Constitution and “government by consent” will demand a level of scrutiny than I cannot muster at 3: 05 am. But I'll be back. (No doubt you will be waiting with bated breath.) To be continued…

George, I don’t really disagree with most of what you say here. Clearly Hayek had some valuable insights. The problem was the way he went about arguing for those insights. Chris Sciabarra has some “interesting” things to say about Hayek’s approach to social theory in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. While exploring the differences between the two, he states: Well, of course, none of this proves Hayek is a collectivist. But this sure seems like is a strange way to go about defending individualism. Thank you for the reference to the essay by Hayek. I will try to find some time to read it and respond.

How do you know this? Just because some -past- writers/lecturers sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore have not even mentioned Branden? Have -all- of those intellectuals done this? Have you actually researched this? The first thing you would need to do research is a pretty clear list of the principles that Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, and decades later Ellen Kenner et al acknowledge as major contributions to which credit is *due morally and in terms of simple honesty* and which Branden or somebody they detest clearly originated, not Rand. I certainly -hope- it's not true that they will ban anyone who does and so no one has. But I don't know whether or not it's true. It's just that you can't simply claim this, urban legend style. Phil, this is such nonsense that I can't believe you really mean it. You want a major contribution for which credit is owed but not given? See Tara Smith on self-esteem, and her crediting Leonard Peikoff with much of Nathaniel's early work on self-esteem. Barbara What strikes me as particularly odd here is that Phil comes across as if he is totally unaware of the history of whitewashing Branden by Peikoff & Co. Well, I just happened to come across this excellent article by Chris Sciabarra on Objectivism and Academe: What makes this even more interesting is that there is an on-line discussion of this article, and that one of the participants is...Phil Coates. What is wrong with this picture?

In other words, America’s decline can be directly attributed to a Constitution which empowered a monopolistic government to engage in the systematic violation of individual rights, and the ethics of altruism are insignificant by comparison. Yet, the fact is that we did have a century or more during which America enjoyed a level of individual freedom and progress which far surpassed anything the world had known for two thousand years, and that began to fall apart in a major way at the exact same point in history when our nation’s laws began to reflect the resurgence of altruism in the culture. It appeared to me—perhaps I’m mistaken—that we had reached some level of agreement about that historical pattern. There is clearly no point in rehashing the anarchy vs. limited government debate here. The arguments on both sides have been repeated over and over so many times that the two sides no longer listen to each other. But it is unfortunate that you seem to want to elevate that issue to a position of such all-encompassing supremacy that nothing else counts. Say what you will, this thread on “Christianity and Liberty” has clearly shown that “so-called altruistic premises” had an undeniable impact on American history. How are we supposed to get back to a point where liberal revolutionaries can evaluate what is or is not a “compromise on freedom,” if we downplay the crucial role of such underlying influences? Are you truly willing to take on the culture of today with ‘voluntarism’ as your ideological starting point? It almost seems as though you believe that minarchists (like me) are the real enemy, and that my defense of the role of pre-political philosophy is a smokescreen for political treachery. “If you want to fight for a world where human life will once more be possible, you must now understand why that battle has to be fought on the field of philosophy…” Branden convinced me of that almost fifty years ago, and I have neither seen nor heard anything to change my mind.

Phil, It was speculation, and probably not all that well-founded. I looked for evidence in My Years With Ayn Rand, and discovered that, by his own statement, Branden had not worked out this principle while Rand was writing Atlas Shrugged. Based on his discussion of the evolution of the visibility principle, he did not fully articulate it until 1959, years after Atlas was published. On the other hand, Branden has often stated that Rand told him she knew “nothing about psychology” (see his “Benefits and Hazards” article), and that she owed such understanding as she did possess to him. In view of that, her many discussions with him may or may not have helped her as she was writing those passages. If Ellen Kenner limits her discussion to Rand’s use of psychological visibility in Atlas, she might validly claim to be ignorant of Branden’s work in that area. However, since she is using Branden’s terminology instead of something like ‘psychological mirroring,’ I seriously doubt that she is ignorant. In fact, I would be willing to bet that she stole a peek or two at Branden’s writings on the topic. And if that’s the case, I still think it’s inexcusable not to give credit where it’s due. In light of all this, and because I have not personally listened to her talk (or audiobook or whatever), I am inclined to temper my earlier denunciation of Kenner, but not my generalized contempt for the policy of pretending that such important contributions to human knowledge do not exist because we are not happy with the author.

I can't see any evidence in the Hayek quote which would support Rand's inference that Hayek thinks "man exists for others". Those who believe that Objectivism supports individualism: when you look at Rand's 'brave new world' depicted in Galt's Gulch - isn't that world far more collectivist than individualistic? From the fact that you think the world of Galt’s Gulch in Atlas Shrugged is not fundamentally different from Huxley’s Brave New World, it would be pointless to try to explain to you how Hayek’s quote constitutes collectivism. So the following breakdown is intended for anyone else who does not grasp Rand’s reasoning here. Your comment about Galt’s Gulch is just too far removed from anything resembling logic and sanity to deserve an answer. I would be insulting the intelligence of everyone on OL to try to explain why that’s obviously not true. Hayek proclaims the following: The fundamental fact on which individualism is based has nothing to do with egoism (i.e., the theory that you own your life and have the right to the pursuit of your own welfare). It is based on the fact that people are incapable of acting on values beyond their private ‘system of ends.’ [The implication is that, if it were practical, totalitarianism would be justified—because the standard is accommodating the needs of the whole society.] Everyone’s scale of values is radically different from everyone else’s. Therefore, if our goal is to accommodate the needs of the whole society, we should allow individuals to pursue their own values within strictly defined limits. Society as a whole should make the decision to “allow” individuals to be free (while strictly limiting that freedom) because this is a more practical way to accommodate society’s needs. So, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, freedom is not based on the individual’s right to his own life. Society owns your life, but has the power to “allow” you to have some limited degree of freedom if it so chooses. Freedom is not a right of the individual but a limited privilege granted to individuals by society for practical purposes. Admirers of Hayek can continue to say that it’s “ridiculous’ to call him a collectivist. I will continue to look at what he says.

Here is my brief summary of some of the key points made by Ronald Hamowy in his article in The Journal of Libertarian Studies (referenced by George H. Smith above). I apologize for the lack of clarity in the first part of this summary, but I think the real fault for that is Hayek’s. As Hamowy says: “Hayek makes little effort to give precision to these terms and his examples are confused.” No kidding. Whatever Hayek is trying to say here, it would be hard to imagine a definition of freedom which has less in common with Ayn Rand’s principle of excluding the initiation of force from human relationships. Under collectivism, the well being of the collective, the group, takes precedence over the individual. A political system based upon collectivism gives the government far-reaching control over the individual. Hayek seems perfectly aligned with Ayn Rand’s Maginalia…

I think Rand's references to visibility in Atlas Shrugged were somewhat more explicit than in The Fountainhead, and that this was due to Branden's articulation of what was occurring on a psychological level. The description of Roark looking at Dominique and seeing himself could be seen as a restatement of Aristotle's idea that a friend is a "second self." Rand's understanding prior to NB was comparable to the preconceptual level of awareness--i.e., primarily emotional, as in sense-of-life. Branden identified the nature of the psychological mirroring involved and made the principle explicit. He turned a vague impression into a profound insight into the fundamental nature of human interaction. That's why Branden deserves credit for originating the principle.

That's obvious and your other remarks about Hayek look second-hand from unreliable sources. If you want some authentic understanding of Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order is a good start. Gee, thanks. As to your recommendation for further reading, I would rather stick needles in my eyes.

George, Once again, thank you for clarifying Jefferson’s antagonism to Hume. Hopefully the prior two posts have fortified your motivation to proceed. If Merlin and Panoptic are following this exchange, no doubt others are as well. [bTW, thanks very much to both of you for your support. I do not pretend to be the brilliant scholar that George is. Thankfully, he appears to have the patience of Job.] In a prior post, you said: In your last post, you said: The first post seems to say that Jefferson denies that self-love is any part of morality. The second post suggests that Kames did regard self-love as a moral principle, and, further, that he saw it as rooted in human nature. Did Jefferson depart from Kames on that point? Certainly Kames’ view seems compatible with rational self-interest, although it isn’t clear to me how Kames justifies that.vis-à-vis human nature. In any case, I am certainly not contending that Jefferson was an altruist. In fact, if Jefferson’s position was at all similar to the above underlined statement from Kames’, his moral views were probably the best one might have hoped for from one of the Founding Fathers. Even so, I don’t see how this conflicts with Rand’s view that America’s decline a century later was due to a lack of an ethical foundation. The issue, after all, is whether there was any substantial effort by all (or most) of the founders to break free philosophically from the two thousand year old tradition of equating morality with selflessness. Jefferson may have made some strides in that direction, but his endorsement of the teachings of Jesus, whether intentional or not, very likely had the opposite effect in the popular mind of his day. Christianity and its ethical underpinnings required a much stronger antidote. Without that antidote, America’s fate was sealed.

A passage from My Years with Ayn Rand: Let me get this straight now. We are supposed to imagine that, in 2010, perhaps Peikoff suddenly decided he and Ayn had been unfair to Branden. He picks up the phone and calls Ellen Kenner. “Ellen,” he says, “let’s do the right thing and acknowledge that Ayn got the principle of psychological visibility from Branden and then used it in Atlas Shrugged. No, I won’t excommunicate you for saying that. I promise.” What’s next? Peikoff calls Branden and invites him to dinner at his home. Hey! It could happen. (Well, believe it or not, there are apparently some people who think it could happen.)

I first heard Branden discussing this topic in his "Objectivist Psychology" course in 1966. I would be interested to know where you saw this in earlier discussions of romantic love. A discussion of the concept of psychological visibility was presented in the lecture on "The psychology of sex," in the NBI lecture series, Basic Principles of Objectivism in the 1960s (and can now be found in print, in Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, Chapter 16, see especially, p. 416), although that term is not used, probably because the material in the lecture was written before 1966. A similar discussion of the concept, without using that term, is in his article, "The Psychology of Pleasure," published first in The Objectivist Newsletter and included as a chapter in Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness (1964). The discussion of "the Muttnick Principle," which he later more elegantly termed "psychological visibility," is presented in some detail in his The Psychology of Self-Esteem (1970), which is a reworking of material presented in The Objectivist Newsletter and the NBI course on Objectivist Psychology, also from the 1960s. I do not have an NBI brochure describing the contents of Branden's course on The Psychology of Romantic Love, which was presented sometime after 1965(a reference to its first date of presentation could probably be found in the "Objectivist Calendar" notices that appeared in the back of The Objectivist). However, I do have the Academic Associates brochure describing the contents of their album set, "Nathaniel Branden Lectures on the Psychology of Romantic Love,"(1970) which it describes as a revised and expanded version of the earlier NBI course. As far as I can tell, the titles and subject material of the AA course remain identical to its NBI predescessor. Two of these lectures specifically discuss psychological visibility: In Lecture 9, "The Goals of a Romantic Relationship," a subtitle is "Communicating psychological visibility:" and Lecture 10 is entitled, "The Failure to Project Psychological Visibility." It is discussed again in Branden's book, The Psychology of Romantic Love (1980), which contains some of the same material as the recorded AA course, but in a considerably reorganized manner. (IMO, the recorded course, which is still available as a CD set, is superior). Jerry, Thank you for the chronology of Branden's discussions of this topic. I had forgotten that NB had referenced this idea in his "Basic Principles of Objectivism" course. But your first post stated that the concept of psychological visibility was not original with Objectivism. I was surprised by that statement and wanted to know where you had seen it (using different terminology) prior to Branden. Again, as I said previously, the only prior mention of anything comparable to the 'psychological mirror' concept that I am aware of was Aristotle's description of a friend as 'another self.' I think Branden should be credited with having originated this principle, but I am open to revising that judgment based on any new evidence you can provide.

Michael, That's good news. I will make it a point to record the show and watch it. "From Fiction to Reality" captures the essence of why someone like Beck would like Rand: her phenomenal genius at foretelling the events we see unfolding today. But will Beck demonstrate any insight into her integration of the events in the story and the destructive ideas underlying those events--i.e., the revolt against reason and the role of the mind in man's existence? I sincerely doubt it. The best we can hope for is that he will shut up long enough so that Brook can try to make that connection. Even so, the show itself will be important for the same reason that the Atlas Shrugged movie will be important--exposing more and more potential readers to the writings of Ayn Rand.

George, I will be the first to admit that the reading I have done in the field of economics is limited. I find it tedious. Perhaps Mises has written some crap that is just as bad as Serfdom, and maybe Hayek has written better. From what I have read, though, Rand appears to be correct in her assessment (although I bet she would strangle Peikoff with her bare hands if she ever found out that he allowed her comments to be published verbatim). Hayek’s whole approach seems to begin and end with: “What is the best approach to rational planning?” He answers: “The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge…of which we must make use exists… solely as the dispersed bits… which all the separate individuals possess. “ That is collectivism, in my view: Starting out with the premise of looking for the most practical way to “allocate the resources.” I have seen articles where socialists use Hayek’s arguments to make their own case, showing where his calculations about the practicality of individual choice went wrong, and therefore socialism is the preferable system. As far as I can tell, he has absolutely no grasp of the moral significance of individual freedom. I am no expert on Austrian economics, but as I understand Mises, he clearly emphasizes the connection between political freedom and economic freedom and that one cannot survive without the other. I question whether Hayek grasps that connection, but I could be wrong about that. My sense is that if someone could convince Hayek of the economic practicality of totalitarianism, he might well switch sides. Again, I am no expert here, but when I read Mises I get a much better sense of classical liberalism's political perspective on freedom. By contrast, Hayek comes across to me like someone who sees individualism as nothing more than an economic formula which happens to work.

Michael: The poison is collectivism. Hayek is no more of an advocate of individualism than any other hack economist, as far as I can tell. He just happens to think capitalism allocates all our resources really well. I can’t imagine why an Objectivist would be a fan of his. The moral stature of the individual is minimal from that point of view—and expendable. I found Beck entertaining for a while, but it got old really quick. If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to push his analysis to a deeper level than “faith, hope and charity.” His unthinking religiosity is so brain-dead that I stopped watching. I just couldn’t take it any more. Beck acts like he does not expect to be taken seriously. He used to have Yaron Brook on his show a lot, but that stopped, probably because of Beck’s rabid, knee-jerk antagonism to atheism. BTW, I did watch part of your video. It’s nice to see Beck waving Atlas Shrugged around on national TV. I just find it really hard to believe he ever read it. Looking at him, I have to wonder if he has ever checked a premise in his life.

I first heard Branden discussing this topic in his "Objectivist Psychology" course in 1966. There was an article about it in The Objectivist around the same time. He originally called it "The Muttnik Principle," because he discovered it while playing with his dog, Muttnik. It is "the experience of self-awareness that results from perceiving your self as an objective existent via interaction with the consciousness of other living entities." I have a considerable background in psychology, and do not recall ever reading earlier discussions of such a principle by other psychologists. There were similar ideas in the history of psychology, such as Aristotle's statement that a friend was, in essence, another self. But, to my knowledge, no prior theorist identified the underlying principle involved; i.e., that while we normally experience ourselves as pure conscious process, other minds can provide us with a unique kind of psychological mirror. I would be interested to know where you saw this in earlier discussions of romantic love. I have no doubt that Ellen Kenner gives Branden zero credit for the discovery of this principle. Once again, the True Believers wrap themselves in a cloak of moral purity while flagrantly rewriting history in the grand Stalinist tradition. To me, this demonstrates a level of hypocrisy and corruption that is beneath contempt.

Michael, In correspondence with Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand stated that Hayek was “an example of our most pernicious enemy . . . real poison” because he “preached contradictory ideas” in defense of capitalism. For this reason, she felt he was “more harmful than 100% enemies.” An example, from Ayn Rand’s Marginalia: Hayek: “ This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society, and that, since, strictly speaking, scales of value can exist only in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist—scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other. From this, the individualist concludes that the individuals should be allowed, within very defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s; that within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others…” Rand: “Oh God damn the total complete vicious bastard! This means that man does exist for others, but since he doesn’t know how to do it, the masters will give him some 'defined limits' for himself. If that’s the essence, this is why individualism has failed.” Elsewhere in her marginalia, she refers to Hayek as a "damn collectivist," a “damn idiot,” an “abysmal fool,” and an “ass.’ She states: "He doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism." According to Sciabarra and Sechrest, Roy Childs once reported that Hayek, much like Beck, “rather admired Atlas Shrugged.” Count me among the Beck nay-sayers.

George, That is a fascinating exposition of Jefferson’s views on ethics, and I want to thank you for it. Clear, logical and concise. You mention Hutcheson and Kames, but I thought their more famous contemporary, David Hume, was the best known of the ‘moral sense’ philosophers. I mention Hume in order to put his ethical views in a wider philosophical context. Hume’s ethics, of course, were consistent with his general world view, which was that of empiricism—i.e., the only matters of fact are those discernable by the senses. Ethical principles, since they are not perceptible, are not matters of fact or objective qualities but perceptions in the mind. Reason has nothing to say about matters of vice and virtue. Reason can only intervene with respect to means, not ends. “Nothing can be more real, or concern us more, than our own sentiments of pleasure and uneasiness; and if these be favorable to virtue and unfavorable to vice, no more can be requisite to the regulation of our conduct and behavior.” (A Treatise of Human Nature) So morality is fundamentally a matter of subjective feeling (sentiments and passions). I can understand that such a view evolved in a historical context where thinkers were desperately seeking some ethical means of restraining tyrants, and that unrestrained self-interest and self-love were believed to constitute a license for brutality and murder. I am not that familiar with Hutcheson and Kame, but Hume, of course, was an atheist and could not invoke God and the Ten Commandments. Without religious restraints, it was believed that men would have no reason not to indulge their “propensities for self-gratification.” So Hume simply argued that humans “naturally” have “other-regarding motives” which manifest themselves as moral passions, and asserted that we must abide by that ethical “inner sense.” Jefferson was drawn to Hume’s approach, because the quasi-egoistic, self-oriented approach of the ancient philosophers provided no justification of a duty to others, and thus left the door wide open for tyrants to exploit their fellow men. Self-love was deemed deficient as a means to govern our darkest passions. Jefferson took to Jesus’ teachings, because he "pushed his scrutiny into the heart of man;”----and expanded the common core of religious teachings forbidding murder and plundering into a “universal philanthropy… under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids…” He then used this “moral psychology” to develop and defend his belief in equal rights and noncoercion. Such a subjective view of moral psychology may well have been understandable from the point-of-view of Jefferson’s historical context, but there was no way such a feeling-based approach to human nature was going to ultimately prevail. Whether he acknowleged it or not, Jefferson was endorsing the Humean premise that reason had no say where virtue and vice were concerned. If desires are the standard, who is to say that one person’s ‘moral sense’ is superior to someone else’s? Even Kant recognized that reason had to have a role in determining moral choices if we are to avoid subjectivism and skepticism in ethics. The only alternative is conflict and chaos in the realm of values. Needless to say, Kant’s severance of reason from ‘things-in-themselves’ prevented him from finding a foundation for values in the facts of man’s “noumenal” nature as a rational being. Although you say you don’t entirely agree with Jefferson, you appear to suggest that his moral defense of individual rights was perfectly adequate as a foundation for freedom. We will definitely have to agree to disagree on that. No, Jefferson was not an altruist. Nor, to my knowledge, were the other Founding Fathers. And the ethical defense they relied upon may have been the best they could come up with at the time. But an emotivist moral defense is inherently chaotic and contradictory, because emotions need reason as an arbiter. The centuries old, quasi-religious ethic of self-sacrifice was left intact, lurking in the background, ready to re-emerge triumphant at some undefined point in the future. Jefferson’s argument against egoism--“To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation also requiring two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed it is exactly its counterpart. It is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others”—is, of course, the standard argument of egoism’s detractors. To wit, egoism provides no objective moral principles other than seeking your self-interest. This view dispenses with the connection between human nature and the objective requirements of human life. Moral obligation does not require two parties—just one that recognizes his life as a fact requiring certain actions if he is to have a successful life. (Needless to say, it also requires granting the same freedom to others.) The Founding Fathers provided a political system consistent with those requirements but not an ethical one. That was the contradiction that would eventually spell America’s doom.

Well, there is Dennis Miller, who, aside from being exceedingly clever, is also a huge admirer of Ayn Rand (but unfortunately not her atheism). Miller shows some very encouraging signs of being a staunch moralist in the cause of individualism. And then there’s Charles Krauthammer, a secular, pro-choice conservative who is also a big critic of the intelligent design nonsense. Stossell is probably the closest thing to an Objectivist in the national media. I know for a fact that he has attended some Atlas Society events in the past. Some of his comments on O’Reilly make me wonder to what extent he really believes in laissez-faire. I would rate all three as far superior to Beck. Faith, hope and charity? Give me a break. I’m sorry. In terms of his grasp of American values, the man is a fool. BTW: There is a self-proclaimed Objectivist on Fox News: Jonathan Hoenig, who appears on the financial news show, Cashin' In, on week-ends. It is fascinating to watch him argue for such things as abolishing social security and the minimum wage. He should be commended for his courage and his ability to make sound, rational arguments in the midst of a cacaphony of discordant pundit hysteria.

A woman was at her hairdresser's getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband. She mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded: "Rome? But it's so crowded and dirty! And, anyway, I would never go to Rome this time of year. So, how are you getting there?" "We're taking Continental," was the reply. "We got a great rate!" "Continental?" exclaimed the hairdresser. "That's a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight, attendants are ugly, and they're always late. So, where are you staying in Rome?" "We'll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome's Tiber River called Teste." "Don't go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks its going to be something special and exclusive, but it's really a dump, the worst hotel in the city! The rooms are small, the service is surly and they're overpriced. So, whatcha' doing when you get there?" "We're going to go to see the Vatican and we hope to see the Pope." "That's rich," laughed the hairdresser. "You and a million other people trying to see him. He'll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You're going to need it." A month later the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome. "It was wonderful," explained the woman, "not only were we on time in one of Continental's brand new planes, but it was overbooked and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot. And the hotel was great! They'd just finished a $5 million remodeling job and now it's a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They, too, were overbooked so they apologized and gave us their owner's suite at no extra charge!" "Well," muttered the hairdresser, "that's all well and good, but I know you didn't get to see the Pope." "Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder, and explained that the Pope Likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I'd be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet me. Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me. "Oh really! What'd he say?" He said: "Oh my God! Where did you get that sh_tty hairdo?"

I attended the new Lincoln Center Theater production of 'South Pacific' at The Ahmanson in Los Angeles Friday night. I cannot recall ever having a more richly rewarding theatrical experience. The rapturous score by Rodgers and Hammerstein was my motivation to see the play, but the performances by the actors in all of the key roles far exceeded my expectations. Rod Gilfry as Emile de Becque and Carmen Cusack as Nellie Forbush were nothing short of amazing. Anderson Davis also does a terrific job as Lt. Joseph Cable. Keala Settle is nearly perfect as Bloody Mary. This magical story set on an island in the South Pacific during World War Two was immensely enjoyable from start to finish. One note of caution: 'South Pacific' packs an emotional wallop unmatched by any other musical I have ever seen. Don't make the same mistake I did and try to get through it without an ample supply of kleenex.

It's difficult for me to comment on the passage from Rand because I don't know exactly what she means by "the altruist morality," in this context. If she means the position that self-sacrifice is our fundamental moral duty, then, offhand, I can't think of any of America's Founders who would qualify as altruists. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is the best and most succinct account of the American mindset during the 18th century, and there is not a hint of altruism in that document. And when Jefferson endorsed the "pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right, he was not breaking new ground. Many political philosophers before Jefferson had used the same phrase or similar expressions, and they were commonplace. For at least 150 years before Jefferson set pen to paper, the pursuit of one's rational self-interest (often called "self-love") had been widely defended. Indeed, Emer de Vattel (whom I quoted in an earlier post) maintained that self-love is "the first principle of obligation" and is "truly primary" in moral philosophy. I agree with Rand that there were significant conflicts "from the start," but these had little to do with egoism versus altruism. Slavery, for example, was the most egregious contradiction, and it would be a stretch to call this institution "altruistic." On the contrary, the critics of slavery viewed it as "license" (which was frequently distinguished from "liberty"), i.e., as the pursuit of self-interest run amok, outside the boundaries of justice. When banning the overseas slave trade was debated during the Constitutional Convention, the proposal was favored by some Virginia delegates. In response, a delegate from South Carolina pointed out that Virginia produced more slaves than she needed, whereas slaves died-off quickly in the miserable rice-paddies of the deep South, which depended on their continuous importation. This delegate maintained that Virginians favored abolishing the importation of new slaves -- not slavery per se; this was never seriously considered -- because this ban would restrict the market and thereby raise the price that Virginians could charge for their slaves. I mention this example of hard-headed realpolitiks because, though extreme, it is typical of political debates during that period, many of which were arguments not over egoism versus altruism but over different perceptions of self-interest. Even when, as often occurred, references were made to the "public good" or the "national interest," it was maintained that such policies would ultimately benefit everyone. There is another, and rather complicated, side to this story. The notion of "public virtue" was a common theme in 18th century America, and we do find arguments to the effect that individuals have an obligation to subordinate the pursuit of their own interests to the greater public good. But, depending on the writer, this could mean nothing more than that individuals have an obligation to pursue their own interests within the boundaries of justice, i.e., while respecting the rights of others. Rand agreed with this position, of course, and she didn't regard respecting the rights of others as altruistic. The call for self-sacrifice also played a conspicuous role in matters pertaining to war; the willingness to sacrifice one's own life while defending American freedom was regarded as a great virtue. Again, Rand stands in basic agreement; the difference is that she doesn't call this a "sacrifice." Anyway, this is very complicated subject, but -- to repeat -- I don't see how altruism (in the Randian sense) played a significant role during the early years of the American Republic. If you think it did, then you will need to mention some specific writers who advocated altruism, or some dominant themes that embodied altruistic ideals. Ghs George, When Ayn Rand said, “From her start,” I suspect she meant to say that the Founding Fathers, because of the contradictions in their beliefs, had sown the seeds for the America’s eventual decline. Prior to the Civil War, most federal interventions seem to have been justified on economic grounds. Even so, altruism was not a major factor in America’s decline until the second half of the 19th century. While Jefferson may not have been an open advocate for the ethics of altruism, he was quoted as saying that the moral system of Jesus was ‘the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” Jefferson’s Bible, while obviously superior to other Bibles because of its strong emphasis on reason, unfortunately did retain many dubious ethical ideas, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the suggestion that we should not place too high a value on the things of this world. While not an endorsement of altruism, it was also far from being an endorsement of rational self-interest. As a champion of the secularized Jesus, the genius behind the Declaration and the right to “the pursuit of happiness,” still had a tendency to extol selflessness as an ethical ideal. Like many of their Enlightenment influences—e.g., the openly Christian John Locke—he and the other founders held a number of contradictory philosophical views. You can find any number of references where they appear to express contempt for religion, and just as many references to suggest the opposite. Rand’s position was that the founders needed to explicitly endorse egoism as America’s moral foundation, and, because they didn’t—because they left altruism largely unchallenged—conventional ethical influences would eventually erode capitalism. As it turns out, those contradictions festered for nearly a century, but once they emerged, capitalism was exposed as a social system without a philosophical foundation, and had to collapse. The institution of slavery was unquestionably a major impediment to America’s growth as a free nation, but we paid a huge price for it, and as horrible as the Civil War was, it demonstrated that we were willing to take responsibility for our mistake. Consequently, I doubt whether it remains a major factor today. Again, I don’t think you are disagreeing with Ayn Rand here. As you may or may not know, she made Peikoff do so many redrafts of The Ominous Parallels that she was practically the co-author. In Chapter 14, titled “America Reverses Direction,” Peikoff discusses in some detail the impact of the influx of German philosophy on The Progressive Era in the late 19th Century and the decades which followed. The chapter begins as follows: “America, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, lasted about a century.” (Prior to the Civil War, the transcendentalism of Raplh Waldo Emerson reflected some early influences of Gerrman Romanticism but, as far as I know, Emerson’s followers did not have that much impact politically. I believe transcendentalism was largely motivated by the wish to save Chrisitianity from science and the Enlightenment.) I have not read Ekirch, so I do not know if he discusses how intellectuals used Hegelian collectivist ideas to corrupt the meaning of liberty. Hegelian Richard Ely, for example, was quoted as saying that the growth of statism might “lessen theoretical liberty,” while it “promotes the growth of practical liberty” (since the state represents the “true self” of the individual). Such collectivist arguments are clearly a variant of altruism, in that they presume the individual only has reality as a part of the group and may be sacrificed for the sake of the group. Incidentally, as I understand it, the Right Hegelians were Christian and interpreted the Absolute in Hegel’s Dialectics as simply a variation on the fundamentalist idea of God, making this bit of history somewhat more relevant to a thread on Christianity and Liberty. Here is more evidence of the impact of altruism in American history. In view of your prior comments about what does or does not constitute altruism, I am interested in your reaction. Prominent intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th Century who called for major government intervention in the name of social justice and social welfare included: Henry Demarest Lloyd (Wealth Against Commonwealth), an early advocate for nationalization; Henry George (Progress and Poverty), who advocated for public ownership of all land; Thorstein Veblen (The Theory of the Leisure Class), another prominent socialist who wrote of the inherent conflict between profit and the general welfare; novelist Edward Bellamy (Looking Backwards), who envisioned a transformed America as a socialist utopia. The Interstate Commerce Commission and the Sherman Antitrust Act were early attempts by the government to instigate the social reforms these thinkers advocated in the name of the “common good." The Progressive Movement in the early 20th Century was to some extent Christian and explicitly altruistic. The “Social Gospel” wing of Progressivism broke away from the earlier Protestant emphasis on individualism to adopt an aggressively altruistic agenda of social justice and social reform and the creation of an interventionist welfare state in the name of Christian morality. A number of Christian spokesmen had a part in that movement, including Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden and Walter Rauschenbusch. Herbert Croly spelled out the Progressive ideology in The Promise of American Life in 1909. The “traditional American confidence in individual freedom,” Croly argued, “has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth,” something that should be corrected by sacrificing and subordinating “the individual to the demand of a dominant and constructive national purpose.” Progressives managed to push through a number of interventions and regulations, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Sixteenth Amendment, which helped free the federal government from fiscal restraints. Then came President Wilson’s selfless effort to make the world “safe for democracy” in the First World War. ” “We have no selfish ends to serve,” he proclaimed. “We seek no . . . compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make.” Croly, editor of the New Republic, justified the war on the grounds that the nation needed “the tonic of a serious moral adventure.” Herbert Hoover’s interventionist policies helped transform some relatively minor economic setbacks into the Great Depression. “Sacrifice by all groups,” said Hoover, “is essential to the salvation of the nation.” Then came the massive interventionist policies of FDR’s New Deal: “ ‘Not for ourselves but for others.’ That motto can well be the inspiration of all of us,” said FDR, “not alone for the fine purposes of charity, but also for our guidance in our public and private service. Selfishness is without doubt the greatest danger that confronts our beloved country today.” World War II was an excuse for even more extensive socialist measures. More altruistic BS from FDR: “If ever there was a time to subordinate individual . . . selfishness for the national good, that time is now.” Taxes, government spending, the national debt, and inflation reached levels this country had never seen before. FDR frequently invoked the “Christian ideal” to justify America’s involvement in the war. In a radio address, FDR described the Nazi plan to "abolish all existing religions" and to replace "the cross of Christ" with the swastika and the sword. "We stand ready in defense of our nation and the faith of our fathers to do what God has given us the power to see as our full duty." After the New Deal, there came the social welfare programs of LBJ’s ‘Great Society”: ”Government must always be compassionate,” said LBJ. It is by the “great dedication of selfless men” that we help the “ill clad and ill fed and ill housed.” And then came Nixon and his wage and price controls: “A strong and healthy spirit,” said Tricky Dick, “means a willingness to sacrifice . . . when a short-term personal sacrifice is needed in the long-term public interest.” Unfortunately, time prohibits citing sources for all of these quotes. A number of them are from an article by Michael Dahlen in The Objective Standard. I can dig up the rest if anyone cares. And I elected not to bore you with the more recent altruistic bromides used by Ford, Carter, Bush I and II, Clinton and Obama to justify their numerous 'idealistic' efforts to abrogate liberty. (Reagan is probably equally culpable but I'm excusing him because I feel like it.) The stomach can only handle so much.

George, Thanks very much for a fascinating exchange. The bottom line, it seems clear, is that you disagree with the following quote by Ayn Rand: "From her start, America was torn by the clash of her political system with the altruist morality. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth-or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces." As a libertarian, it sounds as though, for you, voluntarism is as fundamental as it gets in the sphere of ethics. We can dispense with concerns about the pernicious effects of altruism altogether. Am I wrong?