I know that many students of Austrian economics have a distaste for Ayn Rand, but I recently ordered a copy of Ayn Rand's Marginalia. She apparently had a lot to say about Human Action. I'm too tired right now to really analyze what she's saying, but, from a cursory glance, it seems like she tears apart a lot of Mises' writing.
Now, I realize her notes were never meant to be published, and I'm also quite aware of how Objectivism and Austrian economics can be reconciled to a degree, but I was wondering if anyone else has a copy of the book and has something to say specifically about her critiques of Mises.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Justin Spahr-Summers: I know that many students of Austrian economics have a distaste for Ayn Rand, ...
I know that many students of Austrian economics have a distaste for Ayn Rand, ...
Like who?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
My money's on GIles.
Capital Pumper:My money's on GIles.
Well, there are others too, but I wouldn't bother naming them even if I could remember who's said what. The point was not that Austrians hate or love Ayn Rand... rather, it was mostly just a disclaimer.
I'm not too fond of her.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Ayn Rand never understood 'Subjectivism' as the term applies to economics. I'm not sure but I think she may have understood the term "subjective" in value theory to mean that the theory itself somehow infers a subjective reality as far as how value originates. This is unfortunate, because her followers are one confused crowd.
Laughing Man: I'm not too fond of her.
I like listening to her interviews. Especially the one on Phil Donahue.
DD5: Ayn Rand never understood 'Subjectivism' as the term applies to economics. I'm not sure but I think she may have understood the term "subjective" in value theory to mean that the theory itself somehow infers a subjective reality as far as how value originates.
Ayn Rand never understood 'Subjectivism' as the term applies to economics. I'm not sure but I think she may have understood the term "subjective" in value theory to mean that the theory itself somehow infers a subjective reality as far as how value originates.
She wrote that life (ultimate value) is a precondition for values. One can only achieve life by being a rational being. To her Subjectivism was the irrational and belief of being able to shape reality with the whims of one's consciousness; a contradiction of A = A.
I can only conclude that she thought that values were grounded in an objective reality.
Daniel:I like listening to her interviews. Especially the one on Phil Donahue.
Mike Wallace interview FTW.
Capital Pumper: DD5: Ayn Rand never understood 'Subjectivism' as the term applies to economics. I'm not sure but I think she may have understood the term "subjective" in value theory to mean that the theory itself somehow infers a subjective reality as far as how value originates. She wrote that life (ultimate value) is a precondition for values. One can only achieve life by being a rational being. To her Subjectivism was the irrational and belief of being able to shape reality with the whims of one's consciousness; a contradiction of A = A. I can only conclude that she thought that values were grounded in an objective reality.
Like I said, she didn't understand "subjectivism".
There is nothing in Subjective Value Theory that is not grounded in an objective reality!
Must be something about the word "Subjective" that she just couldn't stand.
I was going to wait until I had read through the whole section on Human Action, then share (what I think to be) the most interesting commentary so the forum members here can discuss whether her criticisms are justified. A lot of her commentary on Mises seems like nitpicking or misinterpretation, but I just now found a comment that really stood out to me:
From Human Action (underlining hers):
The fact that economic calculation in terms of money is unequal to the tasks which are assigned to it in these illusory schemes for establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security cannot be called a deficiency. There is no such things as eternal, absolute, and unchanging values. The search for a standard of such values is vain. Economic calculation is not imperfect because it does not correspond to the confused ideas of people yearning for a stable income not dependent on the productive processes of men.
Rand's comment:
Basic contradiction in Mises' theory: if it is true, as he here argues about economics, that human life has to be constant motion, then the concept of man as a being constantly seeking the Nirvana of stagnation and constantly pushed by "uneasiness"—is wrong. On what ground would we assume—"as an apriori praxeological absolute"—that man, by nature, is set against reality? If life is motion, then action is man's proper state—and only abstinence from action (the opposition to reality and to one's own nature) can cause "uneasiness." What Mises blanks out totally in his assumption of a happy Nirvana-seeker is the phenomenon of ambition.
Personally, I think that what she's saying makes perfect sense and does kind of punch a hole in that part of Mises' praxeological basis.
Justin Spahr-Summers:Personally, I think that what she's saying makes perfect sense and does kind of punch a hole in that part of Mises' praxeological basis.
i think what she says is wrong....
first off what does she mean by 'set against reality' i think these are weasal words set to make you think Ayn Rand is correct and Mises is wrong.
asserting that 'mans proper state' should be a state of happiness, is a non-sequitur. Mises never says what the proper state of man is. Mises just recognises what is it about man that prompts him to act. (unease).
On 'ambition' recognise that when anyone does anything motivated by their 'ambition' this is just another way of saying that they act so as to remove felt unease.
I'm not sure what lefts of Ayn Rands' criticism, but if you would like to have a go restating it after having taken on board my criticisms, i would love to give your creation a second look.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:first off what does she mean by 'set against reality' i think these are weasal words set to make you think Ayn Rand is correct and Mises is wrong. asserting that 'mans proper state' should be a state of happiness, is a non-sequitur. Mises never says what the proper state of man is. Mises just recognises what is it about man that prompts him to act. (unease).
Well, it seems like Mises (and, indeed, just about any economist) idealizes the world of perfect security. Not in the sense that everyone should or will be all-contented, but their reasoning is that everyone aims for perfect security—"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action." Naturally, Mises notes that this is an impossible ideal, but his praxeological axioms seem to be based on a drive toward this world of calm.
In the quoted passage, however, he asserts that there is no such thing as the "eternal, absolute, and unchanging" when it comes to humanity. Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux. In other words, if no human values are static, perhaps our natural state is one of action, and that to refrain from action creates uneasiness.
This has no economic consequences, because the conclusions drawn from the axiom are still correct, but it challenges the philosophical implications of the axiom. Such is also the case with most of the rest of her notes on Mises.
Justin Spahr-Summers:Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux.
this is a complete non-sequitur.
humanity is in a state of flux, ergo..... what exactly?
maybe if you are Rand: because a man is in a 'state of flux' (whatever that means), therefore, lessoning his uneasiness is not what drives him to action?
good grief.
nirgrahamUK: Justin Spahr-Summers:Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux. this is a complete non-sequitur.
Rand points out that this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action, assuming that humanity is always in a state of flux.
I disagree. The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.
nirgrahamUK:humanity is in a state of flux, ergo..... what exactly? maybe if you are Rand: because a man is in a 'state of flux' (whatever that means), therefore, lessoning his uneasiness is not what drives him to action?
Yes, exactly. Again, like I said, there are no economic consequences of this perspective, but it's important philosophically (and praxeology does incorporate some philosophy, regardless of Mises' intentions).
Justin Spahr-Summers:I disagree. The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.
.... ok, another non-sequitur. 'you disagree', with what? if you dont think what she said is a non-sequitur, say why...
for my part, it simply does not follow from "humanity is always in a state of flux." that "this world of security can hardly be the ideal driving men to action", what is the warrant? where is the argument? its just a non-sequitur.
Justin Spahr-Summers:The philosophy underlying economic conclusions is just as important as the conclusions themselves.
I never impugned philosophy; and i understand the importance of praxeology, even as Rand does not understand praxeology.
Justin Spahr-Summers:Yes, exactly
JSS:
I believe that both you and Miss Rand have mis-read the passage from Mises.
When he writes above: "...these illusory schemes for establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."
He is referring to the government's use of public debt and the attempts to create money with stable purchasing power which try to overcome the laws of the market (i.e., the attempt by governments to try to overcome the praxeological laws of economics). He is saying that the government, through public borrowing and debt schemes, and through attempts to stabilize the currency, cannot provide lasting calm, happiness, security, etc., for society.
He is saying that these schemes are illusory and unrealizeable... (the schemes governments are trying to implement)
Then, you quote this passage as if it were an idealization of human action on the part of Mises and other economists. You imply that Mises puts forth this statement as his concept of human action:
"Well, it seems like Mises (and, indeed, just about any economist) idealizes the world of perfect security. .....their reasoning is that everyone aims for perfect security---"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action."
You have totally misread and misunderstood Mises.
He is criticizing the idea of using governmental means in an attempt to circumvent economic laws, and you are interpreting his critique of the attempt to use government to circumvent economic laws as Mises's concept of action.
That is simply a terrible misread.
Then you continue:
"In the quoted passage, however, he asserts that there is no such thing as the "eternal, absolute, and unchanging" when it comes to humanity."
This again is a blatant misreading and misrepresentation of what Mises is asserting. He writes: "There is no such things as eternal, absolute, and unchanging values. The search for a standard of such values is vain."
Mises doesn't refer to the collective concept of "humanity" as you write.
Also, as the title of the chapter indicates (The Root of the Stabilization Idea), Mises is saying the idea that money has a rigid purchasing power, or that government can "stabilize" the purchasing power of money, is faulty. He is saying that it is vain to try to find a standard of eternal and rigid value as is implied in the idea of a currency with stable purchasing power.
So again, a misreading of what Mises is saying.
Rand seems to make the same mistake. In the context of critiquing Mises's quote, she writes:
"...then the concept of man as being constantly seeking the Nirvana of stagnation ....What Mises blanks out totally in his assumption of a happy Nirvana-seeker is...."
Rand is saying that Mises is putting forth the concept of man as seeking "the Nirvana of stagnation" and of man as "a happy Nirvana-seeker."
If we look at the passage that Rand is referring to, Mises has written: "...establishment of an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."
What Mises is saying is that the government is attempting to do something that cannot be done (i.e., provide a realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and provide eternal security....)
Rand is saying: What a contradictory concept of human action Mises has !!
Rand, like you, is taking Mises's critique of government intervention in monetary affairs and implying that it constitutes his theory or concept of human action. You are both misreading the passage.
Then she continues: "On what grounds would we assume....that man, by nature, is set against reality?"
By which she seems to mean that man would be "set against reality" if he is a being that tries to reach an unrealizable state of Nirvana. But Mises is referring to the government's plans to overcome the laws of the market, and create a realm that is not subject to the laws of the market, as he writes: "people yearning for stable income not dependent on the productive processes of men."
He is criticizing such people as aiming in vain for a state of affairs that cannot be attained.
Rand is mistakenly reading this as part of Mises's conception of individual action, as if Mises held the idea that all action is directed toward:
"an unrealizable realm of calm removed from the inescapable limitations of human action and providing eternal security...."
That is not Mise's theory of action. Rand appears to be misreading and misunderstanding Mises.
Here is Mises's concept of human action:
"Man's aim is to substitute what he considers a better state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. He strives for the substitution of a more satisfactory state of affairs in place of a less satisfactory state of affairs. And in the satisfaction of this desire, he becomes happier than he was before."
"The theoretical science of human action presupposes only one thing---that there is action, i.e., the conscious striving of individuals to remove uneasiness and to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for one that is less satisfactory."
(The Free Market and its Enemies, p.14)
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Rand saw that the word subjective was used a lot by Mises, and since she's an 'objectivist,' she tried to attack his position without really understanding it.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: Rand saw that the word subjective was used a lot by Mises, and since she's an 'objectivist,' she tried to attack his position without really understanding it.
Rand was very subjective herself. But since she called herself objective...
It's like the odd Objectivist we get here who argues against anarchy. They simply cannot explain how law can be objective, except that it must. Because.
liberty student: Rand was very subjective herself. But since she called herself objective... It's like the odd Objectivist we get here who argues against anarchy. They simply cannot explain how law can be objective, except that it must. Because.
Rand seems to be begging the question, and not answering it. Okay, ambition drives human action, but what is ambition, and why do we have it? Furthermore, it seems that she's completely missing Mises' point: it's not that Mises is a deconstructionist, or a postmodernist, who believes that everything is subjective; but rather, there are certain laws of human nature, which manifest themselves in different ways due to the heterogeneity of our experiences. 'Society' is not always and everywhere the same.
Esuric:but rather, there are certain laws of human nature, which manifest themselves in different ways due to the heterogeneity of our experiences
Ah, it sounds like you're saying Mises was exactly what he wanted to combat: A polylogicist. The laws of logic are uniform throughout time. Mises believed in normative subjective value, which means that goals cannot be questioned, merely means. However, this conflicts with Mises himself because Mises obviously postulated that common man wants prosperity and liberty.
Laughing Man:Ah, it sounds like you're saying Mises was exactly what he wanted to combat: A polylogicist. The laws of logic are uniform throughout time. Mises believed in normative subjective value, which means that goals cannot be questioned, merely means. However, this conflicts with Mises himself because Mises obviously postulated that common man wants prosperity and liberty.
Well, I'm saying that the laws of value are always and everywhere the same, but desired ends require different means in different cultures (ultimately trying to obtain satisfaction by eliminating uneasiness/inadequacies). For example, the desired end may be prestige, but prestige in ancient Rome is not the same as prestige in ancient Nepal, and as such, there will be different means employed for that very same end.
I don't think this contradicts Mises at all, he states, "The value of the monetary unit is always and everywhere the same, but the desires of men are not always and everywhere the same" [Something like that; I lost my notes for The Theory of Money and Credit ><]. He's attacking the belief that the same monetary unit's purchasing power varies regionally; like when people say that the "dollar is weaker in NYC."
Adam Knott:JSS: I believe that both you and Miss Rand have mis-read the passage from Mises.
Thank you for your long and detailed response. I didn't think that Mises was defining his concept of human action in the excerpt I quoted, but it did seem like he was implying that perfect calm/security would be a Good Thing. Laughing Man made a good point, though, about Mises' value beliefs.
I'll try to transcribe more of Rand's comments at some point later this week.
Esuric: but desired ends require different means in different cultures (ultimately trying to obtain satisfaction by eliminating uneasiness/inadequacies).
Not necessarily. Means can be similar from place to place. I don't think similar goals require similar means but I think I am understanding what you are trying to say now.
Esuric:I don't think this contradicts Mises at all, he states, "The value of the monetary unit is always and everywhere the same, but the desires of men are not always and everywhere the same"
Well you were saying 'laws of nature' which is kind of ambiguous especially in economic terms.
Laughing Man:Well you were saying 'laws of nature' which is kind of ambiguous especially in economic terms.
Yeah, I wasn't really being clear. I was really talking about the laws of value (ends/means, time preference). But my point was that Mises was not some radical subjectivist who denied any and all absolute truth/natural law.
Esuric:But my point was that Mises was not some radical subjectivist who denied any and all absolute truth/natural law.
Absolutely. I agree with that.