...
Show More
This is an interesting presentation of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Although it simplifies the views of many past philosophers, it provides a nonrelativist (ergo, "Objectivist") approach to philosophical thinking. In the latter respect, it is similar to the approach of Leo Strauss (1899-1973). However, Objectivism differs from Strauss in many respects, including its premise of economic libertarianism and its understanding of philosophy as a dogmatic tool in the service of preservation rather than skeptical, rational inquiry as an end in itself.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) has been co-opted by the right wing of American politics. Although she shared with some (not all) conservatives the postulate of economic liberty, she differed from many of them in her atheism (she famously told William F. Buckley, Jr. that he was too intelligent not to be an atheist) and in her insistence that the basis of individual rights is not historical custom or divine revelation but rather philosophic natural rights. Aristotle and Locke were her favorite philosophers. She eschewed the emerging libertarian movement, writing that it was bound to end up as a hippie phenomenon because it lacked a philosophical basis for ethics. She similarly criticized Milton Friedman and "Chicago School" economic conservatives. Although she sympathized with Austrian School economics, she thought that Friedrich von Hayek's concessions to governmental actions were heretical, and she did not accept the fact-value dichotomy of Ludwig von Mises. She kicked the Austrian School theorist Murray Rothbard (1926-75) out of her inner circle (ironically called by the members themselves "the Collective") because he advocated anarchocapitalism as distinguished from her teaching that limited government was necessary. Needless to say, she would have been appalled by the theocratic turn of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She never proved, to my satisfaction, how limited government could be consistent with her nonaggression principle, which I believe she obtained from Locke. Specifically, taxation and other governmental requirements cannot, in my view, be possible if one adheres strictly to her principles. She seemed to support some sort of voluntary financial support of government, which is self-evidently absurd. Similarly, the logical conclusion of the nonaggression principle, Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is, as Rand herself said, totally unrealistic. Accordingly, one must find a different rational basis for government than that proffered by either Rand or Rothbard.
When one reads Rand herself instead of the writings of her many epigones, one often finds nuggets of wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Rand's philosophy itself has its limitations.
(Originally posted 3/16/2016; revised 3/17/2016.)
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) has been co-opted by the right wing of American politics. Although she shared with some (not all) conservatives the postulate of economic liberty, she differed from many of them in her atheism (she famously told William F. Buckley, Jr. that he was too intelligent not to be an atheist) and in her insistence that the basis of individual rights is not historical custom or divine revelation but rather philosophic natural rights. Aristotle and Locke were her favorite philosophers. She eschewed the emerging libertarian movement, writing that it was bound to end up as a hippie phenomenon because it lacked a philosophical basis for ethics. She similarly criticized Milton Friedman and "Chicago School" economic conservatives. Although she sympathized with Austrian School economics, she thought that Friedrich von Hayek's concessions to governmental actions were heretical, and she did not accept the fact-value dichotomy of Ludwig von Mises. She kicked the Austrian School theorist Murray Rothbard (1926-75) out of her inner circle (ironically called by the members themselves "the Collective") because he advocated anarchocapitalism as distinguished from her teaching that limited government was necessary. Needless to say, she would have been appalled by the theocratic turn of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She never proved, to my satisfaction, how limited government could be consistent with her nonaggression principle, which I believe she obtained from Locke. Specifically, taxation and other governmental requirements cannot, in my view, be possible if one adheres strictly to her principles. She seemed to support some sort of voluntary financial support of government, which is self-evidently absurd. Similarly, the logical conclusion of the nonaggression principle, Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is, as Rand herself said, totally unrealistic. Accordingly, one must find a different rational basis for government than that proffered by either Rand or Rothbard.
When one reads Rand herself instead of the writings of her many epigones, one often finds nuggets of wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Rand's philosophy itself has its limitations.
(Originally posted 3/16/2016; revised 3/17/2016.)
