@ 5:30, the Chairman of BB&T talks about how they refused to participate in eminent domain endeavors, and “pick-a-payment” mortgages, even though such mortgages were sellable on secondary markets. He then offers a fantastic, insider look at TARP. Because the Fed didn’t want to let the public know which banks had gotten into trouble, they forced ALL big banks to accept TARP.
@ 24:30, A libertarian asks a question which points to the divide between Randian Objectivists and libertarians. The guy’s defence of Rand’s war on altruism is rather feeble.
FYI, I favor 95% of Rand’s Objectivism.
@ 27:00, there is a great discussion of fish pedicures, and a psychopathic, parasitic legislator who wants to outlaw the practice (unless you can sterilize the fish).
@ 36:30, I think there’s a good question about the state’s role in preventive legislation, like laws which regulate distracted driving, which poses threats to other people’s liberty. I guy from Reason Magazine who took the question answered well — as well as you can answer if you believe in the state. However, I think the correct response is the anarcho-capitalist line, that roads should be privatized, and regulated by their private owners.
@ 41:30, there is a wonderful chart correlating sales of Atlas Shrugged with expansions of the U.S. government.
To call road privatization an anarcho-capitalist position is misleading. It is actually the position of all capitalists in the sense Rand gave to the word, i.e. radical, laissez-faire. It is she who laid out the ethical foundation for the non-initiation of force principle that the Libertarians and their anarcho-capitalist wing adopted while ignoring or even rejecting the ethical underpinnings.
Objectivism’s position is that the government’s only job is to prevent the use of force and guarantee that all human interactions in a society are voluntary. That would require all roads to be private and everything else as well.
ive never read any Rand and probably wont, all i have to say is, i want a fish pedicure so goddamn badly.
Thanks for the comment, Michael. Can you recommend an essay that elaborates on your point of anarcho-capitalists adopting the non-initiation of force principle while ignoring or rejecting the ethical underpinnings of her philosophy?
I’ve been skeptical than Ayn Rand shares the anarcho-capitalist position of no government and the privatization of everything, because she has so explicitly praised, for example, the U.S. military. But I’m curious to learn more.
roman,
I have been an Objectivist for over 40 years now, and I read all of her works long ago, so I cannot easily say which ideas are in which essays anymore. In this case, you should probably read the book of essays, “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”. Also, online you can go to aynrandlexicon.com for excerpts from all of the writings on over 200 different subjects. The sources and page numbers are cited.
There is a long history of thinkers and writers who have to one degree or another grasped the superiority of capitalism as a political system, but Rand was the first to demonstrate that it was not just because it was practical. Rather she showed with her philosophy that it was practical because it was first of all moral.
It was that very achievement that led to the schism among free market advocates, because current culture is not philosophically inclined and a multitude are religious with a mystical base of morality from which capitalism cannot be logically derived. Few over thirty with a spouse and family and friends and colleagues who might look askance upon Rand’s radical ideas could muster the courage and integrity to embrace Objectivism.
Also, because Rand recognized that ideas drive history, and only a change in the philosophy and culture dominant in a country could result in a free society, she eschewed political action and focused on education. This frustrated many capitalist sympathizers.
So Libertarians gathered and organized and sought more members into their “big tent” to pursue political change. they didn’t care for Rand’s secular philosophy, and did not grasp that the ethical foundation was a necessity. John Stossel is a perfect example. Though he does a commendable job educating people on the benefits of liberty, he breaks down on the hard questions. He might support private roads, but not voluntary funding of government. When the public raises an outcry against the extreme positions, Libertarians will always cave in, whereas Objectivists will not.
The anarcho-capitalists are a segment of the Libertarians who would elevate free-market economics to be the foundation of capitalism in place of Rand’s egoist ethics that requires individuals to strive to be autonomous in the application of their reason to their actions in the service of their life. But theirs is a path fraught with contradictions.
Economics is a specialized science that describes how humans will act under any given political system. Politics is a normative science that extends ethics in the individual context into a social one. You cannot derive a politics out of an economics. Also, they demand a “free market in defensive force” not grasping that there is no such thing as a market in force. A free market is a condition that results from an absence of force already being achieved. Their belief that it would be an initiation of force for the government to interfere with their choice to defend themselves from force with their own judges and defense agencies is backwards. Allowing all men to do that without a rule of one system of laws and procedures known to all, would itself be an initiation of force, because it would be arbitrarily exercised. A system condoning the wholesale use force arbitrarily would violate the right to everyone’s justifiable expectation of freedom from force in their everyday life that is over half the value of liberty.
Rand supported the military as our primary defense against aggression, and specifically a defense against attack. She was no nation-builder. And per her politics, the nation could not go to war without the financial support of the populace, since the government would not have the power to tax.
Thanks for that reply. I’m very interested in examining the similarities and differences between Objectivism, and the Austrian School with which I’m fairly well acquainted.
> Allowing all men to do that [have a free market in defensive force] without a rule of one system of laws and procedures known to all, would itself be an initiation of force, because it would be arbitrarily exercised.
This certainly points to a break between the Objectivism, and the Austrian, Anarcho-capitalist tradition of Rothbard, and Hoppe.
Would it be fair to summarize the Objectivist position then as advocating a government monopoly on arbitration?
Hoppe speaks directly to the issue of monopoly on arbitration, as well as your concern of arbitrarily exercised private defense in his book, Democracy, the God that Failed.
Apologies for bringing up the small differences. On the vast majority of issues, Austrian Schoolers and Objectivists are allies in full agreement.
A quick search for Objectivism vs. Austrian School leads me to these places:
www.nattvakt.com/onlineenglish/facebook.htm
(much of the criticism here is directed toward Mises. Rothbard disagreed with Mises on the moral neutrality of economics and wrote quite a bit about ethics.)
rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Austrian_Economics_and_Objectivism.shtml
(Good rebuttal by a pro-Austrian Objectivist to an anti-Austrian Objectivist)
www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
(Rothbard’s scathing accusation that “Randianism” is a cult)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism
(Notice her comment about anarchists)
I haven’t encountered the idea of a monopoly over arbitration. Objectivism intends government to have a monopoly over the use of force, and that would include preventing, stopping, adjudicating, and punishing its use. You could still have private arbitration agencies to arrive at settlements between consenting opponents without violating the government monopoly on force.
Branden’s comment on Mises in the nattvakt.com article accurately reflects Rand’s position in the 1960’s. I recall reading Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” and Mises’ “Human Action” from NBI’s recommended books list.
Don’t fall for the “cult” accusation. It is not possible for an Objectivist cult to exist. The philosophy specifically condemns the acceptance of ideas on the strength of one’s faith in a leader. It would not be too hard to find an Objectivist who acts cultish, but any person who would think or behave in a cultish way would not qualify to be an Objectivist. So, of whom could such a cult consist?