Yaron Brook interviewed on The Street

[Mark]

On February 28 Yaron Brook was interviewed by Mallory Factor (that’s his name) on the website The Street. The title of the interview is: "What if Ron Paul is Anti-Government?"

Here’s a complete transcript of what's on the website. I fixed several pointlessly repeated phrases, e.g. "I think, I think" is transcribed as "I think."

Mallory Factor: Now you’re an Objectivist, or some people say a Randian. Most people consider that part of the libertarian movement. Ron Paul is considered a libertarian.—

Yaron Brook: [interrupting] Yeah.

MF: You love him don’t you?

YB: [emphatic] I don’t love Ron Paul.

MF: Why not?

YB: I get harassed to no end over this.

MF: [incredulous] Why not, how could you not?

YB: I don’t for a number of reasons. One, I just find him inarticulate. And I don’t find him a very good champion for the cause.

MF: Fine, let’s put that aside.—

YB: [over-talking] Two. I disagree with his foreign policy.

[At this point the published recording apparently skips ahead in the interview. There is no pause in the audio between the last sentence and the next, and the camera cuts from one angle to another.]

There’s something about Ron Paul that strikes me, that underneath he’s anti-business and particularly anti-banking, and not just in the crony sense but in the more fundamental sense. And I can’t completely prove this, it’s more a sense that I get from him. But for example many of his answers on domestic issues, the trail end of his answer will be: [raises voice] "And those bad big businesses and Wall Street types" right. And he doesn’t say crony business and he doesn’t say crony Wall Street, he just says business. And I think he comes from a libertarian tradition that is on the anarchist side of the spectrum. I think his intellectual roots are Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.—

MF: [over-talking to explain who they are]

YB: Murray Rothbard the economist and Lew Rockwell who runs the von Mises Institute. And I think they hold fundamentally anarchist anti-government and a hatred of government but also a hatred of big business. And I think that Ron Paul is infected by that and I think it’s unfortunate because what we really need is somebody with real free-market ideas – now he doesn’t have to be an Objectivist – somebody with real free-market ideas who’s articulate and passionate, who can actually make the case for capitalism up there among the candidates, that would be terrific.

OK, I think I’ve got it. Ron Paul is an inarticulate closet communist/anarchist who follows Ludwig von Mises in his hatred of businessmen, therefore in the race for president we must support either Romney or Obama.

The Street: What if Ron Paul is Anti-Government?

Mark

ARI Watch

[studiodekadent]

This is one of the many reasons I dislike the Orthodox Objectivists.

They have a severe tendency to view large enterprises as symbolic of free markets, so they have a predisposition to romanticize large corporate behemoths.

Large corporations are precisely the kind/s of enterprises that are most likely to engage in rent-seeking (Corporatist) behavior. They also act in a far more heirarchical manner, demanding conformity and producing Organization Men (and less innovation as a direct result, see Schumpeter etc.). Howard Roark was self-employed, but don't ask the Orthos to remember that.

"Big Business," historically speaking, has been an enemy of free market economics (going by how many large business entities have actually acted, lobbying the State etc). Sure, there have been exceptions and not all big businesses have done this, but the idea that a general skepticism towards large firms somehow constitutes being insufficiently pro-market is tripe.

This, I think, is a form of concrete-boundedness; treating concrete objects as living embodiments of specific abstractions. For instance, treating large businesses as if they WERE free market economics, thus assuming skepticism of large business entities must be some form of anti-market belief.

[anthony]

SDK,

Well said, and I agree. (While also trying to avoid mutual exclusions).

One wonders who would have thrived as Big Business today, within "free market

economics."

Would there be any BB at all?

Interesting, that what you see as "concrete-boundedness", I have sometimes related

to a floating abstraction (among orthodox O'ists) of capitalism embodying itself in powerful Big Business as a rationalistic ideal. As if a Corporation over-laps the 'given' with the man-made, metaphysically. When you don't have much to admire, you grab what you can - in effect.

I don't know if this makes sense.

I might be wrong, but it seems to come down to the same as your approach.

[Robert Campbell]

Ron Paul's got some liabilities, but his opposition to the Fed and his distrust of "too big to fail" financial institutions aren't among them.

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

I agree that the behavior you impute to "Orthodox Objectivists" in #2 and #3 is reprehensible, but I don't see that it actually is anybody's behavior. Can you cite some examples of orthodox Objectivists practicing the inconsistencies you describe?

[anthony]

I agree that the behavior you impute to "Orthodox Objectivists" in #2 and #3 is reprehensible, but I don't see that it actually is anybody's behavior. Can you cite some examples of orthodox Objectivists practicing the inconsistencies you describe?

Reidy,

As behavior, no. In debate, when I joined O.Online three years ago, I was quite

dismayed at many posters' acceptance of the status quo of business today - as representative of capitalism. It did not fit what I had understood from CUI, and I think I made a mild objection which was criticized. I was a newbie, and there were more ARIan Objectivists around then. Now, there is a spirit of greater independent-mindedness there, I sense.

(Economics is never going to be my strong suit, I freely admit.)

Tony

[studiodekadent]

I agree that the behavior you impute to "Orthodox Objectivists" in #2 and #3 is reprehensible, but I don't see that it actually is anybody's behavior. Can you cite some examples of orthodox Objectivists practicing the inconsistencies you describe?

Yaron Brook's allegations above, charging Ron Paul of being insufficiently free market, are a clear case. Brook basically said "because Paul is suspicious of big business he isn't sufficiently free market."

Big business =/= free market and as any student of public choice economics or regulatory capture or any other form of corporatism can tell you, big businesses are often the greatest enemies of free markets.

Brook is confusing Rand's symbolic use of captains of industry (a use which was never uncritical given how there are plenty of corrupt industrialists in Atlas Shrugged) as a representation of the nobility of human Promethean greatness, with actual real life big businesses. Yes, in and of itself, a big business is not necessarily bad (even if many big businesses ARE), but suspicion toward big businesses (if grounded in empirical realities about how big businesses are often rent-seekers) is certainly not anti-market.

Just like the orthodox Objectivists view Rand as a concrete embodiment of Objectivism's philosophical principles.

Arguably, some of the hawkish attitude displayed during the early days of the War On Terror is also an example of this; treating an attack on the World Trade Center as an attack on modern liberal free market enlightenment values, an attack on America as an attack on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the American government as the embodiment of "American-ism" thus explaining the bellicose pro-statist posture that some Objectivists adopted during those years (yes, Bin Laden and co. clearly have an ideological/philosophical motivation, but if an ideological/philosophical difference were sufficient to cause Islamic terrorism, then why is Islamic terrorism so historically recent? And why do Christians and Jews, many (although not all) of which hold anti-enlightenment philosophical positions, display a lesser propensity to terrorism than Muslims? Basically, an ideological/philosophical disagreement with the Declaration of Independence is by no means sufficient (and arguably not even necessary) to result in terrorism).

In short, this mindset seems to end up in some sort of Hegelian idealist situation, seeing concrete reality as merely a battleground for clashing abstract forces. In essence, reading reality as if it WERE a Rand novel where everything is a stand-in for philosophical positions.

[Robert Campbell]

Brook is confusing Rand's symbolic use of captains of industry (a use which was never uncritical given how there are plenty of corrupt industrialists in Atlas Shrugged) as a representation of the nobility of human Promethean greatness, with actual real life big businesses. Yes, in and of itself, a big business is not necessarily bad (even if many big businesses ARE), but suspicion toward big businesses (if grounded in empirical realities about how big businesses are often rent-seekers) is certainly not anti-market.

Andrew,

Exactly.

Would Brook praise the bailed-out AIG, or General Electric under Jeff Immelt?

I guess he would feel obliged to.

Robert Campbell

[Mark]

As hinted sarcastically at the end of the post starting this thread, Yaron Brook grossly misrepresents the views of Ron Paul. To see how bad it can get, see the new ARI Watch article:

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

(In the post starting this thread I made a mistake. I confused the "von Mises Institute" with the man. Mr. Brook did not refer to von Mises.)

[studiodekadent]

As hinted sarcastically at the end of the post starting this thread, Yaron Brook grossly misrepresents the views of Ron Paul. To see how bad it can get, see the new ARI Watch article:

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

(In the post starting this thread I made a mistake. I confused the "von Mises Institute" with the man. Mr. Brook did not refer to von Mises.)

Mark,

A great article. Thank you for it.

Orthodox Objectivists seem to fetishize bridge-burning to a monumental degree. I guess it makes them feel morally superior. And their absolute refusal to even calmly discuss market anarchism or those that have intellectual roots in the market anarchist movement is just inane. One can disagree with market anarchists whilst still learning from them and respecting their work.

[Mark]

Noodlefood (Philosophy in Action) continues to do its bit to protect ARI from real criticism. A comment there linking to ARI vs RP disappeared within minutes of being posted.

It's a timely article and I think worth spreading around in Objectivist circles.

[caroljane]

ARI Canada????

Oxymoron!