Libertarians Need Objectivism

[Mike Renzulli]

I attended a Liberty on the Rocks function a short time ago in which one group of gentlemen gathered together during this affair to discuss philosophy. The discussion went from when one owns their body (using the drug war as an example) and then turned to the subject of rights.

During the discussion on this subject, I asked a libertarian engaged in the exchange what an individual right was. He gave me a blank stare at first but after thinking it about said something you own. I politely explained the error in his answer pointing out what individual rights are and moved on elsewhere in the party.

The experience I have with libertarians being unable to answer specific questions about certain aspects of their philosophy is not unique. Unfortunately, in a general sense and many cases libertarians treat individual rights as some abstract, subjective concept. They can articulate individuals have rights but have little knowledge about the details and how they apply in specific instances. Some disregard a rights-based approach to liberty altogether and prefer consequentalist or semblances of utilitarianism.

Despite ultimately siding with the notion that people have rights libertarians know little about them, do not know or do not adequately articulate it leaving an inqusitive outsider with more questions than answers. Subjective claims or incomplete answers about individual rights or libertarian ideas stand no chance of winning over people already steeped in subjective, anti-individualist ideologies like religion, statism, skepticism, and radical environmentalism.

It should come as no surprise that critics refer to libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope or Democrats who like to own guns. The concept libertarians espouse is that of doing whatever one pleases without interference from government, society, collectives, etc. Yet this (albeit falsely) conjures up claims on the part of our enemies and opponents of people engaging in wild parties involving large amounts of drug use, orgies and other nihilistic activities. What is mostly ignored not just by our rivals but libertarians as well are heroic acts of rational, productive achievement and success on the part of individuals that have brought about all the benefits of the world we see today.

It is true that the non-aggression principle that Ayn Rand articulated is the center piece of libertarian thought and action (i.e. no individual may initiate physical force against another). But this principle is neither an axiom nor a self-evident truth.

Ayn Rand rightly understood this and properly detailed a long chain of reasoning that led her from basic axioms of reality (existence, consciousness, and identity), through the necessity of reason as mankind’s means of survival. This, in turn, leads to the Aristotelian ethic of human life as the standard of values, the individual as an end in him or herself, and to the inevitable, logical conclusion that laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system.

If taken objectively and logically this line of thought leads to the non-aggression principle. It accepts that a this-worldly life is good ethic with reason as the method of obtaining and maintaining it. As a result, each person must be left free to follow his own mind without interference from government, society or collective consciousness.

Is this reasoning present anywhere in libertarian thought? Unfortunately, after an extensive search on my part, save for Ms. Rand, it is scarce at best. Libertarians need an objective, moral basis for why individuals should have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Instead of reality, ethical subjectivism is the basis for libertarian ethics and many other facets of libertarian philosophy including how libertarians conduct themselves. In light of this it is not surprising that people hyphenate the word libertarian with other sets of belief systems such as christianity, anarchism and even odd terms like conservatarian.

Ayn Rand rightly understood that the absence of a rational, moral defense of individual rights would lead to the death of liberty. Such axioms are necessary foundations for any movement that advocates individual freedom and thats why she culminated Objectivism that encompasses many areas of philosophy to help people who study it not only to think but also to live.

We all know that liberty is not license. However, the idea of a nation filled with pimps, prostitutes, and drug addicts will not inspire the average person or win over people normally on the fence on certain social or even economic issues. The idea of a world filled with rational, healthy, productive people who trade freely with others of similar character will. Inspirational role models populate the pages of Ayn Rand’s fantastic fiction novels continue to enjoy strong sales decades after their first printings and that Ms. Rand's ideas continue to survive and thrive even to this day.

What American culture and the libertarian movement needs is another Renaissance that embraces a widely renewed respect for reason in this life and on this earth. Emulating Rand's charachters would be a good start and, in my view, Objectivism is the best philosophy to help achieve this with the beauty of libertarian thought and ideas to help compliment it.

Some may doubt the effectiveness of Objectivism as a working philosophy. If you would like to measure its success in a venue Objectivists and libertarians both appreciate (the market place) you need look no further than the banking giant BB&T and Koch Industries. BB&T has established Objectivism as its official corporate philosophy.

Koch Industries uses Austrian Economics as the basis for the company's corporate philosophy known as market-based management. CEO Charles Koch touts his company's philosophy as contributing to its success. He has not only written a book on the subject but has funded a think tank to culminate and expand upon Charles Koch's approach in hopes of influencing other companies to adopt it. As a result their success as organizations both BB&T and Koch continue to grow.

If Objectivism is good enough to drive the success of multi-billion dollar companies, wouldn't it also make sense to use it to drive the success of a political philosophy and groups erected to further it let alone good enough for a libertarian to live by? Think about it.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

I attended a Liberty on the Rocks function a short time ago in which one group of gentlemen gathered together during this affair to discuss philosophy. The discussion went from when one owns their body (using the drug war as an example) and then turned to the subject of rights.

During the discussion on this subject, I asked a libertarian what an individual right was. He gave me a blank stare at first but after thinking about said something you own. I politely explained the error in his answer pointing out what individual rights are and moved on elsewhere in the party.

The experience I have with libertarians being unable to answer specific questions about certain aspects of their philosophy is not unique. Unfortunately, in a general sense and many cases libertarians treat individual rights as some abstract, subjective concept. They can articulate individuals have rights but have little knowledge about the details and how they apply in specific instances. Some disregard a rights-based approach to liberty altogether and prefer consequentalist or semblances of utilitarianism.

Despite ultimately siding with the notion that people have rights libertarians know little about them, do not know or do not adequately articulate it leaving an inqusitive outsider with more questions than answers. Subjective claims or incomplete answers about individual rights or libertarian ideas stand no chance of winning over people already steeped in subjective, anti-individualist ideologies like religion, statism, skepticism, and radical environmentalism.

It should come as no surprise that critics refer to libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope or Democrats who like to own guns. The concept libertarians espouse is that of doing whatever one pleases without interference from government, society, collectives, etc. Yet this (albeit falsely) conjures up claims on the part of our enemies and opponents of people engaging in wild parties involving large amounts of drug use, orgies and other nihilistic activities. What is mostly ignored not just by our rivals but libertarians as well are heroic acts of rational, productive achievement and success on the part of individuals that have brought about all the benefits of the world we see today.

It is true that the non-aggression principle that Ayn Rand articulated is the center piece of libertarian thought and action (i.e. no individual may initiate physical force against another). But this principle is neither an axiom nor a self-evident truth.

Ayn Rand rightly understood this and properly detailed a long chain of reasoning that led her from basic axioms of reality (existence, consciousness, and identity), through the necessity of reason as mankind's means of survival. This, in turn, leads to the Aristotelian ethic of human life as the standard of values, the individual as an end in him or herself, and to the inevitable, logical conclusion that laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system.

If taken objectively and logically this line of thought leads to the non-aggression principle. It accepts that a this-worldly life is good ethic with reason as the method of obtaining and maintaining it. As a result, each person must be left free to follow his own mind without interference from government, society or collective consciousness.

Is this reasoning present anywhere in libertarian thought? Unfortunately, after an extensive search on my part, save for Ms. Rand, it is scarce at best. Libertarians need an objective, moral basis for why individuals should have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Instead of reality, ethical subjectivism is the basis for libertarian ethics and many other facets of libertarian philosophy including how libertarians conduct themselves. In light of this it is not surprising that people hyphenate the word libertarian with other sets of belief systems such as christianity, anarchism and even odd terms like conservatarian.

Ayn Rand rightly understood that the absence of a rational, moral defense of individual rights would lead to the death of liberty. Such axioms are necessary foundations for any movement that advocates individual freedom and thats why she culminated Objectivism that encompasses many areas of philosophy to help people who study it not only to think but also to live.

We all know that liberty is not license. However, the idea of a nation filled with pimps, prostitutes, and drug addicts will not inspire the average person or win over people normally on the fence on certain social or even economic issues. The idea of a world filled with rational, healthy, productive people who trade freely with others of similar character will. Inspirational role models populate the pages of Ayn Rand's fantastic fiction novels continue to enjoy strong sales decades after their first printings and that Ms. Rand's ideas continue to survive and thrive even to this day.

What American culture and the libertarian movement needs is another Renaissance that embraces a widely renewed respect for reason in this life and on this earth. Emulating Rand's charachters would be a good start and, in my view, Objectivism is the best philosophy to help achieve this with the beauty of libertarian thought and ideas to help compliment it.

Some may doubt the effectiveness of Objectivism as a working philosophy. If you would like to measure its success in a venue Objectivists and libertarians both appreciate (the market place) you need look no further than the banking giant BB&T and Koch Industries. BB&T has established Objectivism as its official corporate philosophy.

Koch Industries uses Austrian Economics as the basis for the company's corporate philosophy known as market-based management. CEO Charles Koch touts his company's philosophy as contributing to its success. He has not only written a book on the subject but has funded a think tank to culminate and expand upon Charles Koch's approach in hopes of influencing other companies to adopt it. As a result their success as organizations both BB&T and Koch continue to grow.

If Objectivism is good enough to drive the success of multi-billion dollar companies, wouldn't it also make sense to use it to drive the success of a political philosophy and groups erected to further it let alone good enough for a libertarian to live by? Think about it.

I agree that the clear and rigorous aspects of Objectivism are useful and even necessary in the realm of politics and economics. Where Objectivism loses its way is when Objectivists try to apply Rand's principles to scientific matters, especially physics. Objectivism borrows heavily from Aristotle and the one area where Aristotle failed miserably was in the area of matter in motion which is the basic stuff of physics (mechanics in particular). Aristotle should be kept out of scientific matters. He flunked physics 101.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 22, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Reidy]

Rand made exactly this point in her diaries in the 1940s. Aristotle's mechanical and cosmological deficiencies are not a problem for her theory.

[sjw]

Is this reasoning present anywhere in libertarian thought? Unfortunately, after an extensive search on my part, save for Ms. Rand, it is scarce at best. Libertarians need an objective, moral basis for why individuals should have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

How do you define "libertarian"? In my vocabulary it's simply a broad and loose term identifying those who are at least approximately for individual liberty. It includes Objectivists and political libertarians (aka "Libertarians"). I.e., I think you're not using the right word for those who you intend to criticize. Perhaps "anti-philosophical libertarians" would be better.

As you're probably aware, I wrote a book identifying the origin of rights, and no it does not follow Rand's line of reasoning because I think wasn't quite right. Ironically, I find many Objectivists to be too anti-philosophical to have a serious discussion about Rand's philosophical problems. Pot, kettle, black.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand made exactly this point in her diaries in the 1940s. Aristotle's mechanical and cosmological deficiencies are not a problem for her theory.

It would be a problem for me. If Aristotle could entertain ideas of motion that could be disproved almost trivially, how reliable is the rest of his stuff?

Aristotle's main failure: He didn't check.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

I did not say they aren't a problem for Aristotle. I said that Aristotle's problems aren't problems for Rand. She never endorsed his efforts on these topics.

[Mike Renzulli]

The libertarians I am refering to tend to make up the social and discussion circles I have been a part of for many years. This also includes participating in LP activities too. There are some who are, as you say, anti-philosophical. However, most tend to take a subjectivist view point. Not just about rights but even how to conduct themselves in their daily lives.

Most are quite intelligent but are lacking in ethics and even thinking too.

How I define libertarian is someone believes in individual liberty, is a member of the LP, an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist, rationalist or even someone who calls themselves one. That includes Objectivists who still call themselves libertarians or who are tolerant of them. I still consider myself a libertarian but my "L" went from large to small.

As an Objectivist I don't consider myself anti-philosophical at all. But I have studied Objectivism and have concluded during my studies that the philosophy is correct in areas of knowledge I know of and agree with its conclusions in areas of knowledge I am lacking in. That doesn't mean I won't consider another view point/philosophy, criticism of Objectivism or even Rand herself (since I do not think of her as a deity but I think highly of her as a philosopher and person despite her faults) let alone even change my mind. At one point I might be interested in reading your book.

Is this reasoning present anywhere in libertarian thought? Unfortunately, after an extensive search on my part, save for Ms. Rand, it is scarce at best. Libertarians need an objective, moral basis for why individuals should have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

How do you define "libertarian"? In my vocabulary it's simply a broad and loose term identifying those who are at least approximately for individual liberty. It includes Objectivists and political libertarians (aka "Libertarians"). I.e., I think you're not using the right word for those who you intend to criticize. Perhaps "anti-philosophical libertarians" would be better.

As you're probably aware, I wrote a book identifying the origin of rights, and no it does not follow Rand's line of reasoning because I think wasn't quite right. Ironically, I find many Objectivists to be too anti-philosophical to have a serious discussion about Rand's philosophical problems. Pot, kettle, black.

Shayne

Edited June 22, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[syrakusos]

During the discussion on this subject, I asked a libertarian what an individual right was. He gave me a blank stare ...

... Republicans who want to smoke dope or Democrats who like to own guns.

... the non-aggression principle that Ayn Rand articulated is ... neither an axiom nor a self-evident truth. ... If Objectivism is good enough to drive the success of multi-billion dollar companies, wouldn't it also make sense to use it to drive the success of a political philosophy and groups erected to further it ...

The libertarians are not advocates of anything, but deniers of state power. That's fine, but it is limited, as you say. What they lack - what Objectivists have - is a workable theory of knowledge. Contradictions do not exist. If you find a contradiction, check your premises. One or both of them will be wrong. They believe all kinds of ocntradictory things. You can wrap them up in knots over issues because they never stopped to think through anything back to first principles.

They pick and choose from the available inventory of political ideas and often they are correct, but not knowing why, they also include nonsense that just feels right to them. I see this especially among younger libertarians because the older ones tended to have come in through Objectivism.

[sjw]

The libertarians I am refering to tend to make up the social and discussion circles I have been a part of for many years. This also includes participating in LP activities too. There are some who are, as you say, anti-philosophical. However, most tend to take a subjectivist view point. Not just about rights but even how to conduct themselves in their daily lives.

How I define libertarian is someone believes in individual liberty, is a member of the LP, an anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist, rationalist or even someone who calls themselves one. That includes Objectivists who still call themselves libertarians or who are tolerant of them. I still consider myself a libertarian but my "L" went from large to small.

OK. I agree. This fits with my experience. But none of this pertains to Libertarianism per se, it pertains to either our time and age, or simply to the nature of most human beings (depending on how cynical one feels one attributes it to the former or the latter). *Virtually everyone* is anti-philosophical -- including Ayn Rand. She was in her own words (if I recall correctly) a "middle range" writer, not being concerned with the theoretical, but rather, in applying what she already believed. And it showed. She never even wrote her theory down comprehensively; Peikoff had to come in and try to reconstruct it.

As an Objectivist I don't consider myself anti-philosophical at all. But I have studied Objectivism and have concluded during my studies that the philosophy is correct in areas of knowledge I know of and agree with its conclusions in areas of knowledge I am lacking in. That doesn't mean I won't consider another view point/philosophy, criticism of Objectivism or even Rand herself (since I do not think of her as a deity but I think highly of her as a philosopher and person despite her faults) let alone even change my mind. At one point I might be interested in reading your book.

Not that I attribute this to you personally, but my view of Objectivism is that it enables one to consider oneself philosophical without actually being so. But again, this is not unique -- many so-called "philosophies" do precisely the same thing. The worst aspect of Objectivism though is that it postures as being pro-Renaissance values, while containing poisonous authoritarianism that would squelch any such Second Renaissance. What we need is a movement of genuine truth-seeking and respect for reason and reality, and in Objectivism we have at best a fictional representation of what this might be like, at at worst, a fraud.

Of course, Rand's primary purpose of life was in being a fiction writer, and I think she carried these methods over to her philosophy. In her books she painted a mostly wonderful individualist vision, not an actual reality of what can and ought to be, but an idea. Her philosophy is likewise not an actual achievement of what philosophy can and ought to be, but rather, at its best it is a fictional sketch of what a valid philosophy might look like. But she was no philosopher.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

Excellent observation, Michael, and I wholeheartely agree. That's why there are so many variantions of libertarians. I was looking for a way in which to articulate this but did not know how. You hit it right on the head!

During the discussion on this subject, I asked a libertarian what an individual right was. He gave me a blank stare ...

... Republicans who want to smoke dope or Democrats who like to own guns.

... the non-aggression principle that Ayn Rand articulated is ... neither an axiom nor a self-evident truth. ... If Objectivism is good enough to drive the success of multi-billion dollar companies, wouldn't it also make sense to use it to drive the success of a political philosophy and groups erected to further it ...

The libertarians are not advocates of anything, but deniers of state power. That's fine, but it is limited, as you say. What they lack - what Objectivists have - is a workable theory of knowledge. Contradictions do not exist. If you find a contradiction, check your premises. One or both of them will be wrong. They believe all kinds of ocntradictory things. You can wrap them up in knots over issues because they never stopped to think through anything back to first principles.

They pick and choose from the available inventory of political ideas and often they are correct, but not knowing why, they also include nonsense that just feels right to them. I see this especially among younger libertarians because the older ones tended to have come in through Objectivism.

[Mike Renzulli]

I disagree with the latter half of your second paragraph. If Ms. Rand or Objectivism weren't, as you say, an actual achievement of what philosophy can and out to be or a fictional sketch then it wouldn't have been carried out all of these years and you wouldn't have organizations (like TAS) who have worked and been successful at academia embacing many things about what Ms. Rand wrote and spoke about.

Not to say she was always right (she was very wrong with her accusations against Immanuel Kant) but she was a brilliant individual and philosopher. If she was not a philosopher many of her writings would not be taken very seriously not just by acamedicians but also people in general who have gone on to do many good things as a result of her inspirational writings (fiction or non-fiction).

As far as, as you say, the authoritarianism in Objectivism this can be a problem but I attribute that as a fault of the individual Objectivists and not the philosophy as a whole. The frame of mind people have to take when they study Rand's philosophy is that it is just that: a philosophy and not a religion. If you have a systematic method of living laid out you will have people who will do things to preserve it since they consider themselves the guardians of its preservation.

But oft times people like this forget how it was they came to it in the first place.

In my instance (like I pointed out earlier) I have concluded during my studies of Objectivism that the philosophy is correct in areas of knowledge I know of and agree with its conclusions in areas of knowledge I am lacking in. Consequently I must admit to have taken a risk by siding with TAS since the group is not highly looked upon by people who support ARI as well as the hierarchy of that organization.

I must admit to having flirted with the idea of switching to ARI but after a critical investigation of David Kelley's approach and comparing and contrasting it with Leonard Peikoff's thoughts while taking into account evidence outside the movement that relate to the debate between the two gentleman, I concluded Kelley's approach is correct.

Not that I attribute this to you personally, but my view of Objectivism is that it enables one to consider oneself philosophical without actually being so. But again, this is not unique -- many so-called "philosophies" do precisely the same thing. The worst aspect of Objectivism though is that it postures as being pro-Renaissance values, while containing poisonous authoritarianism that would squelch any such Second Renaissance. What we need is a movement of genuine truth-seeking and respect for reason and reality, and in Objectivism we have at best a fictional representation of what this might be like, at at worst, a fraud.

Of course, Rand's primary purpose of life was in being a fiction writer, and I think she carried these methods over to her philosophy. In her books she painted a mostly wonderful individualist vision, not an actual reality of what can and ought to be, but an idea. Her philosophy is likewise not an actual achievement of what philosophy can and ought to be, but rather, at its best it is a fictional sketch of what a valid philosophy might look like. But she was no philosopher.

Shayne

[anthony]

I am no expert on Libertarianism, and I warn you it may show!

Politically, when all we can choose from in the world right now, is 'soft' Statism, creeping Statism, or advanced and terminal Statism (and this I know about), any nation that could become predominantly libertarian I would rush to, like a shot.

Yet, it is also very frustrating. Apart from the NIOF principle, what can it offer? The principle seems a disconnected idea to me, a floating abstraction. It seems a variant of the Golden Rule: "I won't be nasty to you, if you aren't nasty to me, first."

On its own, it's meaningless and insupportable.

But, founded on individual rights, which in turn are founded upon rational egoism, it follows logically.

I think of NIOF as an almost-corollary to Galt's Oath - "I swear by my life, and my love of it ... that I will not impose on another's life and property, as they should not, on mine."

Without the backbone of Objectivism, libertarianism might forever remain a minority (in the free-est nation on Earth!), and if it ever did come to power - in its present state - I suspect there'd be many practical problems in governance.

Tony

[sjw]

I disagree with the latter half of your second paragraph. If Ms. Rand or Objectivism weren't, as you say, an actual achievement of what philosophy can and out to be or a fictional sketch then it wouldn't have been carried out all of these years and you wouldn't have organizations (like TAS) who have worked and been successful at academia embacing many things about what Ms. Rand wrote and spoke about.

You're free to disagree. I would disagree with myself from ten years ago. But in my opinion now, she does not have the careful, judicious, meticulous mind of an rational philosopher. She was characteristically too impulsive, too reckless with ideas to come close to my personal standards of what counts as an authentic rational philosopher. That she viciously attacked David Hume is very ironic, because unlike her pretensions of being a philosopher, was an actual philosopher. (But at least she respected Aristotle).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To say Rand "was no philosopher," Shayne, is simply taking a broad rationalization and putting it on a throne. Say she had deficiencies as one, that's worth talking about.

--Brant

[Selene]

To say Rand "was no philosopher," Shayne, is simply taking a broad rationalization and putting it on a throne. Say she had deficiencies as one, that's worth talking about.

--Brant

Brant:

Agreed. A more objective perception of the philosopheress of Objectivism.

Adam

[sjw]

To say Rand "was no philosopher," Shayne, is simply taking a broad rationalization and putting it on a throne. Say she had deficiencies as one, that's worth talking about.

--Brant

Whether you decide to consider someone a philosopher or not depends on your standards. By your standards, she's a philosopher. Fine. She's a philosopher for you. To me she was a hack. She had promise, but through her blind arrogance, utterly wasted it, and in the process, wasted the potential of a bunch of other might-have-been philosophers as well.

Shayne

[syrakusos]

I met Gregory M. Browne at Eastern Michigan University. I mentioned his book, Necessary Factual Truth, here on Objectivist Living. I named my blog for his book and there, I explained why. Twice because more needed to be said.

I know Greg Browne personally. He is a nice guy; and he is smart. But if you want to look at it from another angle, he is just a midrange guy at a midrange school. That he is an Objectivist professor of philosophy speaks volumes about the value of Ayn Rand's philosophical works.

As I have mentioned perhaps too often, I just finished in 2010, five years of college and university education with an associate's, bachelor's, and master's. My fields were criminology (AA, BS) and social science (MA). I know the current academic scene; and it is bankrupt. But that means that it does have some assets. Greg Browne is one. Here we have posters Bob Campbell and Jeff Riggenbach who teach at university.

Rand could be excessive - really, she could - but you know, wanting to write about Ethics in Law Enforcement, I found an academic book (sorry; trip to the library online, but can't find it) worried over whether one can be selfish AND moral. It did not even consider egoism as a moral philosophy. But I consider such editing old school. When I look in any book on modern philosophy, if I don't see Ayn Rand in the index, I don't even consider it valid.

We are expected to accept Franz Kafka's THE METAMORPHISIS as an expression of Existentialism. But what is Anthem? Jean Anouihl's Antigone was an affront to the Nazis that they did not even perceive. But what was We the Living? (I think that The Fountainhead was the better expression.)

Galt's Speech is an encapsulation of Rational-Empiricism, what the postmodernists denounce as "the project of the Enlightment on a globalist neo-liberal trajectory."

To bring this around, Libertarians and libertarians are wholly incapable of understanding the problem, let alone offering a solutuion. They are anti-intellectuals. But the salvation of humanity depends on speaking to the intellects of individuals.

As noted: Libertarians need Objectivism.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Selene]

To say Rand "was no philosopher," Shayne, is simply taking a broad rationalization and putting it on a throne. Say she had deficiencies as one, that's worth talking about.

--Brant

Whether you decide to consider someone a philosopher or not depends on your standards. By your standards, she's a philosopher. Fine. She's a philosopher for you. To me she was a hack. She had promise, but through her blind arrogance, utterly wasted it, and in the process, wasted the potential of a bunch of other might-have-been philosophers as well.

Shayne

Shayne:

Are you calling her a "hack" philosopher, or, a "hack" writer?

Adam

[sjw]

Shayne:

Are you calling her a "hack" philosopher, or, a "hack" writer?

Adam

Philosopher.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

To say Rand "was no philosopher," Shayne, is simply taking a broad rationalization and putting it on a throne. Say she had deficiencies as one, that's worth talking about.

--Brant

Whether you decide to consider someone a philosopher or not depends on your standards. By your standards, she's a philosopher. Fine. She's a philosopher for you. To me she was a hack. She had promise, but through her blind arrogance, utterly wasted it, and in the process, wasted the potential of a bunch of other might-have-been philosophers as well.

Shayne

The "hack" we all talk about. What you are doing here is reducing your opinion and mine about Rand to just opinions. Like I said, let's stick to particulars to accomplish something. I mean, there's nothing like insulting everybody who would disagree with you, which is just about everybody who has some serious admiration for her. If you deal with ideas on some level in some respect you deal with philosophy; she dealt with ideas all over the place. She was all about ideas--choosing. Philosophy is about choosing. Choices. Goals. Free will means the mind needs an operating system--software. It will acquire that software. Rand says make it as rational as you can so you can make best and right choices. Most such software for most people is a mish-mash. That Rand made some bad tactical and strategic choices is unfortunate albeit understandable to some extent, but that didn't strip away her philosophihood. We, not you, call her a philosopher so other people will have a basis of understanding what we are talking about when we start talking about her: someone who deals with ideas, especially on a profound level. She's dead. We the living are attempting to communicate with the rest of humankind. What you are saying is not in the least helpful for doing that. To the contrary.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne:

Are you calling her a "hack" philosopher, or, a "hack" writer?

Adam

Philosopher.

Shayne

Okay, so she's a philosopher after all.

--Brant

pulling teeth

[Selene]

Shayne:

Hack philosopher is a colloquial and usually pejorative term used to refer to a philospher who is paid to write low-quality, rushed articles or books "to order", often with a short deadline.

This substitutes philosopher for writer.

It is clearly a pejorative evaluation and demeans Ayn.

I fail to understand why you chose that word, or, why you, as Brant pointed out attempt to paint her with a negative broad brush.

Adam

[jriggenbach]

I met Gregory M. Browne at Eastern Michigan University. I mentioned his book, Necessary Factual Truth, here on Objectivist Living. I named my blog for his book and there, I explained why. Twice because more needed to be said.

I know Greg Browne personally. He is a nice guy; and he is smart. But if you want to look at it from another angle, he is just a midrange guy at a midrange school. That he is an Objectivist professor of philosophy speaks volumes about the value of Ayn Rand's philosophical works.

As I have mentioned perhaps too often, I just finished in 2010, five years of college and university education with an associate's, bachelor's, and master's. My fields were criminology (AA, BS) and social science (MA). I know the current academic scene; and it is bankrupt. But that means that it does have some assets. Greg Browne is one. Here we have posters Bob Campbell and Jeff Riggenbach who teach at university.

Correction: I haven't taught at any level since January 2000. I miss it, and still hope to do it again. If I do, it'll probably be online. Frankly, it's hard for me to find work as a teacher at the college level. I have no Ph.D., only an M.A., like Michael. In today's academic environment, Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen. If you can get a guy (or a gal) with a Ph.D. to work for peanuts as an adjunct, what do you need with some superannuated guy with an M.A.?

Libertarians and libertarians are wholly incapable of understanding the problem, let alone offering a solutuion. They are anti-intellectuals. But the salvation of humanity depends on speaking to the intellects of individuals.

As noted: Libertarians need Objectivism.

This is simplistic at best. Today, as for the past 40 years or more, the majority of libertarians have been either Randians or Rothbardians. And for all practical purposes, there is no significant difference, except that Rothbard was willing to pursue the logic of Rand's basic position to its logical conclusion - anarchism - and she wasn't. Read The Ethics of Liberty and tell me that Rothbard is an "anti-intellectual."

JR

[syrakusos]

Correction: I haven't taught at any level since January 2000. I miss it, and still hope to do it again. If I do, it'll probably be online. Frankly, it's hard for me to find work as a teacher at the college level. I have no Ph.D., only an M.A., like Michael. In today's academic environment, Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen. If you can get a guy (or a gal) with a Ph.D. to work for peanuts as an adjunct, what do you need with some superannuated guy with an M.A.?

Certainly, that is a broad truth. I send out applications for every posting in my areas (crim and soc) at two-year and four-year colleges listed in at higheredjobs.com that do not require a Ph.D., and they are scarce. That said, I point out that Toni Morrison has only a master's. Of course, her Nobel Prize carries some argument for her skill. So, there are opportunities for exceptional people. Libertarians are generally not welcomed in the social sciences. So, that's another barrier. Academic journal articles are very important to success - but books and textbooks are not, for some reason. Getting hired to teach humanities at university is a complex, rigorous, and unforgiving process.

All it means is that if you want to work as a college professor, you have to work harder at finding the jobs. And adjunct work in the humanities does not pay well. But we have known that for ages. In fact, Adam Smith explained why. So, it is no secret.

Libertarians and libertarians are wholly incapable of understanding the problem ...

This is simplistic at best. Today, as for the past 40 years or more, the majority of libertarians have been either Randians or Rothbardians. ... Read The Ethics of Liberty and tell me that Rothbard is an "anti-intellectual."

I stand corrected. I oversimplified. The context was Michael Renzulli's generalization which I believe we have agreed does not intend the older generation who came to political libertarianism via Objectivism. Many libertarians are well-read and many others are not and we do not have numbers for that.

By "well-read" I do not mean consuming books that tell them what they want to believe. For me, the value in my education was specifically the challenge of learning from people I did not agree with.

Murray N. Rothbard does not impress me as much as he did was I was younger. He does argue well for liberty and freedom. His plagiarism of The Suffolk Banking System could be excused if he did not twist the history of banking to meet his anarchist prejudices. His History of Money and Banking in the United States is garbage. When I read it, I believed every word. Then, to get more information, I followed his sources and read more history. I now have the facts that prove his faith, but he manufactured the relics he needed.

One of my interests in criminology is academic misconduct and research fraud. Just as people steal where they shop, whether Wal-Mart or Tiffany's, so, too are about 20% of the practicing professors and scientists either misdemeanants or felons. Rothbard was one of those. Sorry. Maybe his other books are not problems. It is also a fact of criminology that perpetrators are mostly OK folks who work and play well with others. Rothbard did write well for liberty and freedom. When errants harm others, they can be remediated and reintegrated into the community. So, maybe Rothbard's other books repay the harm for Banking. Also, people age out of crime. Maybe Rothbard did, too.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[anthony]

Libertarians and libertarians are wholly incapable of understanding the problem, let alone offering a solutuion. They are anti-intellectuals. But the salvation of humanity depends on speaking to the intellects of individuals.

As noted: Libertarians need Objectivism.

This is simplistic at best. Today, as for the past 40 years or more, the majority of libertarians have been either Randians or Rothbardians. And for all practical purposes, there is no significant difference, except that Rothbard was willing to pursue the logic of Rand's basic position to its logical conclusion - anarchism - and she wasn't. Read The Ethics of Liberty and tell me that Rothbard is an "anti-intellectual."

JR

Now, that is good news - albeit not so new. Encouraging for the future of the L'ian movement.

Sign me up!

(One of those times I'm pleased to have been wrong.)

Tony