Brian Doherty on the Legacy of Ayn Rand

[emb021]

All-

There is a new video on reason.tv with Brian Doherty (author of Radicals for Capitalism) on Ayn Rand: http://www.reason.tv/video/show/115.html

I thought it was pretty good, but I am sure there will be some who won't like the references to Rand being a libertarian...

[Chris Grieb]

I'm sure there will be objections to the statement Rand was a Libertarian but she was. She was not an anarchist.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'm sure there will be objections to the statement Rand was a Libertarian but she was. She was not an anarchist.

I think the term libertarian encompassed things that Rand was uncomfortable with. Cultural hedonism and America bashing are high on the list. I think Rand would have been okay with classical liberal.

Jim

[emb021]

I think the term libertarian encompassed things that Rand was uncomfortable with. Cultural hedonism and America bashing are high on the list. I think Rand would have been okay with classical liberal.

This is true for most libertarians. The term is used in the US for a broad set of people, not all of whom many of us would agree with.

And then I see people overseas using the term to apply to beliefs that aren't always pro-liberty (communarism, and such)

[Chris Grieb]

Michael and Jim; I like classical liberal but I think when you say you are a classical liberal people go "Oh Libertarian. Either that or they think you're an admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm sure there will be objections to the statement Rand was a Libertarian but she was. She was not an anarchist.

Libertarians come in roughly two flavors. The Big L's who are members of the Libertarian Party and the little l's who are not. The little l's come in two flavors; those who are basically anarchists and those who are not. The latter are minarchists (i.e. they favor small or limited government which exists to protect life and property from wrongful aggression). Rand would more or less fit here on this particular issue (limited versus extensive government). Rand's approach is more systematic and philosophical than is typical among the small l's. I think it was the the lack of system and coherence in small l thinking that annoyed Rand.

I used to be in that camp. However since 9/11 I have reconciled myself to government that is sufficiently well equipped to destroy my enemies. When the war is over, it is either won or lost. If lost then it makes no difference as we are all in deep shit. If won, I can get back to fighting for limited government. But right now I want a government that will kill my enemies. You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

Bob,

Getting in touch? You mean you were once different?

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

Bob,

Getting in touch? You mean you were once different?

Michael

Constitutional republics are perfectly capable of fighting wars. Over the last century, I think they've done well.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

Bob,

Getting in touch? You mean you were once different?

Michael

Constitutional republics are perfectly capable of fighting wars. Over the last century, I think they've done well.

Jim

I know of only one, the USA. France? Germany? Japan? Well in the fighting sense or well in the overall, general sense?

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

I agree with the objections to this, but it's a very funny line.

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

You might say I am getting in touch with my Inner Fascist.

Bob,

Getting in touch? You mean you were once different?

Michael

Constitutional republics are perfectly capable of fighting wars. Over the last century, I think they've done well.

Jim

The US has done very well in its fighting wars. The other countries mentioned in a later post were not Constitutional republics.

[Brant Gaede]

Can someone provide a list of constitutional republics, past and present, so we can have some idea how many and a better understanding of the idea than just the US?

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Can someone provide a list of constitutional republics, past and present, so we can have some idea how many and a better understanding of the idea than just the US?

--Brant

Brant,

I think Britain and the US apply, though not knowing enough about how Britain codifies their judicial branch I couldn't say for certain. France has the Code Napoleon which guarantees them very little in the way of rights when accused of a crime. They have a terrible record in wars, but many of them have been fought by foreign fighters in the foreign legion. We imposed a constitution on Japan, but one that strictly limits what they can spend on defense.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

Can someone provide a list of constitutional republics, past and present, so we can have some idea how many and a better understanding of the idea than just the US?

--Brant

Venice was a republic that lasted about 300 years. It was ruled (or governed) by an oligarchy so it was not a democracy as we understand democracies. It turned out that the method of selection of the governing body involved at some stages a lottery selection of the leaders. \

Here is a blurb excerpted from the Wiki article:

The Venetian governmental structure was similar in some ways to the republican system of ancient Rome, with an elected executive power (the Doge), a senate-like assembly of nobles, and a mass of citizens with limited political power, who originally had the power to grant or withhold their approval of each newly elected Doge. Church and various private properties were tied to military service, though there was no knight tenure within the city itself. The Cavalieri di San Marco was the only order of chivalry ever instituted in Venice, and no citizen could accept or join a foreign order without the government’s consent. Venice remained a republic throughout its independent period and politics and the military were kept completely separate, except when on occasion the Doge personally led the military. War was regarded as a continuation of commerce by other means (hence, the city's early production of large numbers of mercenaries for service elsewhere, and later its reliance on foreign mercenaries when the ruling class was preoccupied with commerce).

The chief executive was the Doge (duke), who, theoretically, held his elective office for life. In practice, a number of Doges were forced by pressure from their oligarchical peers to resign the office and retire into monastic seclusion when they were felt to have been discredited by perceived political failure.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 15, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Adrian]

Can someone provide a list of constitutional republics, past and present, so we can have some idea how many and a better understanding of the idea than just the US?

--Brant

Brant,

I think Britain and the US apply, though not knowing enough about how Britain codifies their judicial branch I couldn't say for certain.

Jim

Respectfully, as a Brit, I don't think we do qualify. Firstly, we are still technically a monarchy, and are individually "subjects" of the monarch, not "citizens" of anything. Secondly, despite intermittent debates, our "constitution" remains, as we like to say, largely "unwritten" (I believe a Frenchman said less kindly of the British Constitution "Elle n'existe pas".) It would be very hard for the courts to strike down any legislative act as unconstitutional. The closest they could get would be if it wasn't properly executed, or if it conflicted with certain European things like the Charter of Human Rights.

I'm not expressing an opinion about whether any of this is a good thing, you understand - just saying that, if you're looking for a constitutional republic, I think you'd have a hard time counting Britain as one!

Best regards

Adrian