Where did Ayn Rand disagree with "libertarians" ??

[RileyE104]

I put libertarian in quotes because since I'm not too familiar with Rand, IDK what her definition of libertarianism is.

I did hear from Dr. Paul once that she was very militant when it comes to foreign policy.

Other than that, I have no clue where the disagreement and extreme hatred of libertarians comes from.

 

[Grubb556]

Rand could have possibly been referring to the party. But I found this interesting

"The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

 

[low preference guy]

Rand could have possibly been referring to the party. But I found this interesting

"The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

The other side of that dispute: Is Objectivism a Cult?

 

[Jtorsella]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

 

[Jtorsella]

Bump

 

[Jtorsella]

Bump

 

[RileyE104]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

Thanks!

 

[emazur]

It wasn't just libertarians, Rand tended to dislike everyone. She would excommunicate any of her friends and associates for the smallest deviation from her own beliefs

 

[Sentient Void]

It wasn't just libertarians, Rand tended to dislike everyone. She would excommunicate any of her friends and associates for the smallest deviation from her own beliefs

This right here. It's not so much a logically consistent disagreement with 'libertarians' so much as her own brutal personality problems and extreme ego (which Rand worship didn't really help from her 'inner circle', etc).

Enjoy...

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

 

[NidStyles]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Ironically, Rand was barely a Capitalist. She was more of a Mercantilist.

 

[Xenophage]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

Spot-on analysis.

I think, as an objectivist myself, that Rand got this horribly wrong, and her position against libertarianism was inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. That's an argument to be had between objectivists, I suppose.

Consider, for instance, that she wrote in support of Barry Goldwater, who was no objectivist! Yet she had to demonize John Hospers? She praised Ludwig von Mises, but she despised Murray Rothbard (the two of them had a volatile history). The inconsistency is bothersome, but then again all humans have faults.

 

[Xenophage]

Ironically, Rand was barely a Capitalist. She was more of a Mercantilist.

You either don't know what mercantilism or capitalism are, or you've never read or comprehended Ayn Rand. Or both.

 

[JuicyG]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

She envisioned an extremely limited government. A judicial system composed of courthouse and law enforcement but that was her whole idea of government basically.

She came from Russia, where people had a very close hand experience with left wing anarchism. It was deeply rooted in their culture as the beginning of 20th century was marked by anarchist movements in Russia, Ukraine, France, Spain and other places.
Even Lenin dodged an assassination attempt by anarchist rivals who wanted to take the marxist revolution in the anarchist direction.
In the US, the left wing anarchists assassinated a US president(William McKinley), which in turn created a law to expel and ban anarchists from the country. Some like Emma Goldman were deported at the time.

So, I think, Ayn didn`t want to associate herself with such anarchist elements. She probably wanted to play it safe and dissociate herself with anarcho-capitalists also.

In Atlas Shrugged, there`s a point there where they go in search of that motor and stumble upon an anarchist society, however it`s a left wing anarchist society that banned use of money and only exchanged goods. That`s the type of anarcho-communist society envisioned by some marxists, where the use of money was removed. I think this is the kind of anarchism she had in mind when she spoke of anarchism. It was mostly left-wing anarchism.

 

[Freeberty]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

This

 

[NidStyles]

You either don't know what mercantilism or capitalism are, or you've never read or comprehended Ayn Rand. Or both.

Rather you are just wrong yourself, and making brash assumptions about me without a rational backing.

Rand supported the standing of Corporations. She also supported the externalizations of the labor to reduce costs at lower real wages, not nominal wages. That is the core of Mercantilism. All of her complaints of the constant interference of the State were negated by her open support of the States replacement in society which is the Corporation. Outside of nomenclature they operate essentially the same.

Thanks for being condescending though.

 

[Vessol]

I've always found it kind of funny that Ayn Rand was opposed to anarchism so much, yet in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged she clearly describes a anarcho-capitalist society in great detail, Galt's Gulch.

Not only that, but there is many arguments by various characters such as Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden, talking about the force and violence that the State must use in order to exist.

I think her opposition to Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism had more to do with personal feelings in her own life rather than any rational or logical argument. If I am wrong, I would most welcome someone to show that I am wrong. The few Objectivists I've talked to have only used a few quotes by her and then called it a day, so it really wasn't substantiated.

 

[JuicyG]

I've always found it kind of funny that Ayn Rand was opposed to anarchism so much, yet in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged she clearly describes a anarcho-capitalist society in great detail, Galt's Gulch.

Not only that, but there is many arguments by various characters such as Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden, talking about the force and violence that the State must use in order to exist.

I think her opposition to Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism had more to do with personal feelings in her own life rather than any rational or logical argument. If I am wrong, I would most welcome someone to show that I am wrong. The few Objectivists I've talked to have only used a few quotes by her and then called it a day, so it really wasn't substantiated.

In Galt`s community there was a courthouse. She thought courthouses and judicial branch should be the essence of government.
Though, in Atlantis, the courthouse was run by a judge they`ve picked. I believe book doesn`t go into much detail explaining how that judge was actually paid, by whole community(statist) or by persons he serviced(free market).

Anyways, as I`ve described in my earlier post, I believe her aversion to anarchism stems from experience with left wing anarchism. She also describes in Atlas Shrugged a moneyless left wing anarchist society when they go looking for that motor.

I do agree with you that Galt`s Atlantis was basically an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian kind of city.

 

[Xenophage]

Rather you are just wrong yourself, and making brash assumptions about me without a rational backing.

Rand supported the standing of Corporations. She also supported the externalizations of the labor to reduce costs at lower real wages, not nominal wages. That is the core of Mercantilism. All of her complaints of the constant interference of the State were negated by her open support of the States replacement in society which is the Corporation. Outside of nomenclature they operate essentially the same.

Thanks for being condescending though.

Gibberish.

Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. They are legal contracts between share holders delineating the ownership of property. There is nothing wrong with corporations - they happen to be extremely effective tools of industry. Why would anyone be anti-corporation, unless they are also anti-property, anti-trade, and pro-force?

Corporations are not states. They are not replacements for states. They do not use force. If a corporation wishes to engage in force, it has to grovel at the heels of the State, which has a monopoly on force. Corporations are amoral. They exist to make profit for the shareholders. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the State within which they exist. If they can use government, they will.

But what if the government had no power to lay taxes, to wage wars, or to violate the rights of others? What if corporations could garner no special privledges from government? What if government existed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and never played favorites?

 

[NidStyles]

Gibberish.

More condescending remarks I see.

Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. They are legal contracts between share holders delineating the ownership of property. There is nothing wrong with corporations - they happen to be extremely effective tools of industry. Why would anyone be anti-corporation, unless they are also anti-property, anti-trade, and pro-force?

Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.

Corporations are not states. They are not replacements for states. They do not use force. If a corporation wishes to engage in force, it has to grovel at the heels of the State, which has a monopoly on force. Corporations are amoral. They exist to make profit for the shareholders. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the State within which they exist. If they can use government, they will.

So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State? Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year? Corporations do not Grovel, if that were true the President would not have massive donations from the financial sector to back his bid for re-election. Romney would not be also garnering the same backing. In reality it's the other way around, the Individuals that operate the State beg for donations for re-election with the promise of preferential treatment.

The corporations created the legal framework that they are working in, why do you think they donate to candidates?

There are no moral arguments here, it's purely Ethical. Morality is a flawed concept based upon Individual ideas of good or evil. Individual morality is flawed in that it can not be applied to everyone, so the argument you are making as a pseudo Libertarian would not apply to everyone if based on morality.

But what if the government had no power to lay taxes, to wage wars, or to violate the rights of others? What if corporations could garner no special privledges from government? What if government existed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and never played favorites?

Corporations would take over the role, if they were still standing after such a collapse. As it stands now the Wars are started and fought at the behest of the Corporations. Unless you really think the Federal Government truly had a motive to invade Iraq. Oddly enough the only people that made out on that deal were the Corporations that struck it big on no bid contracts. Go figure, it was also the same Corporations that donated and put Bush into office.

It's silly for anti-Statists to support an organization that operates in the same manner as the States they so despise. I would prefer no Government, rather some unrealistic utopia that would never happen.

 

[angelatc]

More condescending remarks I see.

It's not condescending if it's true. Take the left-wing tirade-of-the-year somewhere else.

So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State?

We don't lose the right to petition the government as a result of our associations, even though you apparently think we should.

Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year?

Assuming you mean rolls, GE pays taxes every year. Again, you're spewing socialist rhetoric, and in fact, most of us think that corporations should pay no taxes anyway.

The government shouldn't have the right to give our money away like it does, but because they do, it's ridiculous to blame the people who ask for it. They're not the problem.