What are the major disagreements between Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard and between Ayn Rand (edit by LS) and Ron Paul?
Rothbard and Rand disagree on ethics. And how they are formulated. And I don't think Rand was that much into economics or making that argument. As a result, Rand is not consistent on ethical or economic premises -- taking them to their logical conclusion. And so Rothbard was an anarchist and Rand a minarchist.
Rand and Ron Paul disagree about Israel's unquestioned superiority over all things, the existence of God, war in general, about "libertarianism"... and that may be it.
John Ess: Rand and Ron Paul disagree about Israel's unquestioned superiority over all things, the existence of God, war in general, about "libertarianism"... and that may be it.
Can you be more specific?
DD5: John Ess: Rand and Ron Paul disagree about Israel's unquestioned superiority over all things, the existence of God, war in general, about "libertarianism"... and that may be it. Can you be more specific?
Rand was basically a neocon when it came to Isreal, the Middle East, and Muslims.Rand believed that anyone who believed in God was irrational.
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."
Ron Paul: thinks Israel should pay for their own nukes, is a Christian, anti-war, and is okay with libertarianism and the LP.
Rand: thought Israel is infallible and needs to be funneled as much money as possible, was atheist, was pro-war, hated libertarians and the LP.
John Ess:libertarians
Hippes of the right [ Soviet accent ]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I thought Rothbard was an atheist?
Praetyre: I thought Rothbard was an atheist?
He was. But he didn't dismiss the contributions that some religious philosophers / theorists made.
Does Rand Paul follow Austrian economics, or is a supply sider/monetarist?
"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."
They aren't talking about Rand Paul, although that is what I thought when I first saw the thread. It is not well laid out in the OP where Rand and Ron are used together.
Rand Paul is a constitutionalist minarchist. I don't know if it is because he is trying to get elected, but he is nowhere near the radical his father is. I'm not sure I would count on him to no-vote like his dad does.
John Ess: Ron Paul: thinks Israel should pay for their own nukes, is a Christian, anti-war, and is okay with libertarianism and the LP. Rand: thought Israel is infallible and needs to be funneled as much money as possible, was atheist, was pro-war, hated libertarians and the LP.
People seem to take for granted that Rand was pro-war, but this just doesn't fit with what I have read. Are you sure you aren't confusing Rand's followers with the lady herself? I seem to remember some very negative comments about Vietnam and "wars of altruism".
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I am not expert on Rand. But it was my understanding that Objectivism offered a complete philosophy on how one should live their life. This included exclusion of concepts like God. The only thing Objectivism and Libertarians had in agreement was the idea of a Free Market.
I think it was even reputed that Ayn Rand was a high opponent of the Libertarian Free Market because she said it was far more dangerous than what the current (at the time) political and economic system was.
I also feel that whether or not Rothbard was atheist or not was irrelevant. While Rand decried the belief in God as a major component of totalitarianism, Rothbard wouldn't support the idea that someone is not allowed to choose to believe in God, even if he himself did not.
The major differences between Rand and Rothbard are also the main differences between Rand and Paul.
In the end, Rand didn't offer choice so much as the Libertarians did. She seems to assert more of the idea that her whole Objectivist Philosophy should be followed in all of it's glory and that Libertarian Free Markets would be bad.
On the other end of it, Libertarians respect Rand because of her Free Market idyll's and respect her outlook based on Objectivism.
If I am wrong on any of these points, I would appreciate some advice on what exactly I should be reading to correct my view. Hope I helped.
Wow, sorry, I just woke up. My grammar is usually much better. I daresay that it looks as if I have no formal schooling at all after re-reading my post. I apologize to everyone about that.
Objectivism:
Rothbardian libertarianism:
Ayn Rand was basically a very vulgar classical liberal, whereas Murray Rothbard was probably the greatest anarchist thinker of all time.
Solid_Choke:People seem to take for granted that Rand was pro-war, but this just doesn't fit with what I have read. Are you sure you aren't confusing Rand's followers with the lady herself? I seem to remember some very negative comments about Vietnam and "wars of altruism".
I think it was in her Donahue interview, she rambled something about aggression and oil.
The one thing you could count on with Rand, was that if she thought she was right, she wouldn't rule out any means of pursuing her goal.
liberty student: Solid_Choke:People seem to take for granted that Rand was pro-war, but this just doesn't fit with what I have read. Are you sure you aren't confusing Rand's followers with the lady herself? I seem to remember some very negative comments about Vietnam and "wars of altruism". I think it was in her Donahue interview, she rambled something about aggression and oil. The one thing you could count on with Rand, was that if she thought she was right, she wouldn't rule out any means of pursuing her goal.
The main problem with Rand is how The Peikoff School / Era of Objectivism has white-washed her legacy with his obvious Neo-Con flavored rhetoric, while claiming that they are the main 'canon' versus all other interpretations. They can make nicely modern book covers for her books, I admit, but I see little else good coming from them. Other people who were shunted out of the "mainline" Rand narrative were typically people who did not buy into the Piekoff nonsense, had different interpretations of Rand (in some cases, more canon interpretations), & who realized the incredibly stupidity of basing one's entire view of Objectivism from works of Rand's fiction (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). The main offspring branches I speak of are The Nethaniel Braden Split, The Kelley School (or the 'open system' of Objectivism, vs. the 'closed system' of the ARI & Peikoff), & POP (Post Objectivism). AFAIK, Rand gave subtle but relevant criticism from deriving such an understanding of her philosophy from her purely fictional works in, ironically, her books "The Art of Fiction" & "The Art of Non-Fiction" (however, it's been a while since I read both of these, as well as Rand in general). As introductions or as high brow relevant intellectual entertainment, I'm sure the fictional works did their purposes, but sometimes it feels like the Piekoff branch just replaced The Bible with her books & called it a day in the critical thinking department :\Admittedly, Rand had her own quirks, including being a rather pompous intellectual & trying to ascribe art with an objective philosophy (which while probably an interesting read on one's own preference elitism, fails miserably in the supposed goal), just as any other human does, so I would still say the best understand of Rand can be derived from one critically analyzing all interpretations (specifically her own), & keeping them in context that she wasn't & never will be, perfect.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
This @ 8 minutes 15 seconds:
And this:
Justin: I am not expert on Rand. But it was my understanding that Objectivism offered a complete philosophy on how one should live their life. This included exclusion of concepts like God. The only thing Objectivism and Libertarians had in agreement was the idea of a Free Market. I think it was even reputed that Ayn Rand was a high opponent of the Libertarian Free Market because she said it was far more dangerous than what the current (at the time) political and economic system was. I also feel that whether or not Rothbard was atheist or not was irrelevant. While Rand decried the belief in God as a major component of totalitarianism, Rothbard wouldn't support the idea that someone is not allowed to choose to believe in God, even if he himself did not. The major differences between Rand and Rothbard are also the main differences between Rand and Paul. In the end, Rand didn't offer choice so much as the Libertarians did. She seems to assert more of the idea that her whole Objectivist Philosophy should be followed in all of it's glory and that Libertarian Free Markets would be bad.
"Shouldn't believe" doesn't mean "Not allowed to believe". If you want to be irrational, go ahead, believe in god. No one should stop you. If anyone did stop you, it would necessarily be a violation of rights.
I've never read anything where she even remotely suggested that a "Libertarian Free Market" would be more dangerous (unless you specifically mean anarchism, in which case you are correct).
Eioul:"Shouldn't believe" doesn't mean "Not allowed to believe".
I stand corrected, you are right. They are not the same thing.
Eioul:If you want to be irrational, go ahead, believe in god
A persons belief, no matter what it is, should not be taken as irrationality. Unless of course you are talking about a belief that drives someone to make violence upon others or take anothers property. I did not say I was a believer in God or anything, I just said a person should be able to believe as they see fit without persecution. The point of religious beliefs have been raised in this thread, not by me.
Eioul:I've never read anything where she even remotely suggested that a "Libertarian Free Market" would be more dangerous (unless you specifically mean anarchism, in which case you are correct).
I must apologize here, I was misunderstood. In the Objectivist point of view, from what I have read, a free market (one of the cornerstones of Austro-Libertarianism) by itself without the rest of the Objectivism philosophy, was purported to be a bad thing. I wish I could explain further.... I read that on an article on LRC actually, and now I can't find it. In this case, I do mean "anarchism" in all it's connotationally negative glory.
Justin: A persons belief, no matter what it is, should not be taken as irrationality. Unless of course you are talking about a belief that drives someone to make violence upon others or take anothers property. I did not say I was a believer in God or anything, I just said a person should be able to believe as they see fit without persecution. The point of religious beliefs have been raised in this thread, not by me.
It depends what the belief is. Really the only point I was making is that while it is irrational to hold certain beliefs (i.e. blacks are inferior, god exists, Paul Krugman knows what he's talking about), it is immoral and a violation of rights to be persecuted for them.
Justin: I must apologize here, I was misunderstood. In the Objectivist point of view, from what I have read, a free market (one of the cornerstones of Austro-Libertarianism) by itself without the rest of the Objectivism philosophy, was purported to be a bad thing. I wish I could explain further.... I read that on an article on LRC actually, and now I can't find it. In this case, I do mean "anarchism" in all it's connotationally negative glory.
It's more that she believed that capitalism requires a philosophical foundation. Capitalism without a philosophical foundation would not be a proper free-market system. Ayn Rand certainly believed that any kind of anarchism would be worse than a mixed market that we have now because there would be "constant gang warfare", to paraphrase. (I don't buy that argument at all).
Ayn Rand is an Objectivist, which is basically a form of Neolibertarianism, whereas Murray Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist, and Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian. All three are pro-capitalism and pro-freedom. Rand is more in favor of an aggressive foreign policy, whereas Paul is not, and Rothbard obviously does not believe in the legitimacy of the USA.
Also, Rand is sexist and homophobic, if you ask me...
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
She'd make Hoppe blush even.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
VanDoodah: Objectivism: It sees truth as always objective - nothing is ever subjective. Reason alone can attain truth. She contributed absolutely nothing to economics, and instead defended corporate capitalism in the name of the free market.
Where did Rothbard (or Paul) say that truth can be anything but objective? Here's Ron Paul on the subjective theory of value:
"There are some who have heard of the subjective theory of value but are hesitant to accept it because they prefer “objectivity” to “subjectivity.” Yet if consumers subjectively set prices and values by affecting supply and demand (and thus sales), this is an important objective finding.
I thought there was some disagreement between Rand and Rothbard on corporate capitalism. Can you give me more on this?
Conza88: Praetyre: I thought Rothbard was an atheist? He was. But he didn't dismiss the contributions that some religious philosophers / theorists made.
No he wasnt. He was an agnostic, and Rand's belligerent atheism was in part, the cause of him leaving her circle.
Interesting to listen to the interviews with Rand (very late in life). Most of her errors strike me as an extension of a basic flaw on which she was never challenged by her contemporaries: the idea that ideas can continue to be exclusively owned once they are generally shared. This was a core conviction of hers, and she held it all her life, and, to my knowledge, was never really challenged on this point. She took it further than most but most everyone in those days shared her conviction.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Now presenting, Jeffrey Tucker, the actor of LvMi. In a daring epic playwright, Mozart was a red.
Mozart was a red
Laughing Man: Now presenting, Jeffrey Tucker, the actor of LvMi. In a daring epic playwright, Mozart was a red. Mozart was a red
It's a particularly rational brand. When will LvMI perform it again?
Eioul: It's more that she believed that capitalism requires a philosophical foundation. Capitalism without a philosophical foundation would not be a proper free-market system. Ayn Rand certainly believed that any kind of anarchism would be worse than a mixed market that we have now because there would be "constant gang warfare", to paraphrase. (I don't buy that argument at all).
I find the "constant gang warfare" argument to be rather silly. If a population is inclined to disregard the non-aggression principle in the absence of a monopolist state, it's absurd to believe that it would support and sustain a basically non-interventionist state rather than simply directing its aggressions through the "legal" channels of said state. I think Objectivists (and minarchists) are confusing the need for a more or less universal acceptance of a uniform ethics (non-aggression and respect for individual rights) with a monopoly on the enforcement of that standard. The acceptance by the general populace of the non-aggression principle is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for a free society with a capitalistic free market.
sicsempertyrannis: Conza88: Praetyre: I thought Rothbard was an atheist? He was. But he didn't dismiss the contributions that some religious philosophers / theorists made. No he wasnt. He was an agnostic, and Rand's belligerent atheism was in part, the cause of him leaving her circle.
I heard that he was an atheist, but that his wife was Catholic (and that is what bothered Rand's Collective). Does anyone have some real evidence to settle this issue?
This is covered in the Burns book. The wife issue was only emblematic, part of a larger problem and greater tensions. I mean, Nate was now in charge. His goal was to create followers of Rand but preventing the stealing of her ideas, right? The only way to do that is to create a clone army that cites her with every sentence.
waywardwayfarer: I find the "constant gang warfare" argument to be rather silly. If a population is inclined to disregard the non-aggression principle in the absence of a monopolist state, it's absurd to believe that it would support and sustain a basically non-interventionist state rather than simply directing its aggressions through the "legal" channels of said state.
I find the "constant gang warfare" argument to be rather silly. If a population is inclined to disregard the non-aggression principle in the absence of a monopolist state, it's absurd to believe that it would support and sustain a basically non-interventionist state rather than simply directing its aggressions through the "legal" channels of said state.
She didn't believe there would be constant war because people be are inclided to disregard the non-aggression principle, but because people would be at the "mercy of the first criminal to come along", to use her words. As in, she believed objective (proper) law couldn't exist in anarchy. It has nothing to do with if people have tendencies to be "good" or "bad", it's the same reasons you think any laws should exist.
Solid_Choke: sicsempertyrannis: Conza88: Praetyre: I thought Rothbard was an atheist? He was. But he didn't dismiss the contributions that some religious philosophers / theorists made. No he wasnt. He was an agnostic, and Rand's belligerent atheism was in part, the cause of him leaving her circle. I heard that he was an atheist, but that his wife was Catholic (and that is what bothered Rand's Collective). Does anyone have some real evidence to settle this issue?
He was agnostic, his wife Presbyterian.From the biographer of Rothbard`s Justin Raimondo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
In any case Ayn Rand far from being close to libertarianism is the farthest thing from a libertarian imaginable. Of all the terrible things the state does war is the worst. Thus it is necessary for any libertarian or a fellow traveller to oppose war. The first step towards libertarianism is to oppose the most criminal and the most destructive state programme of all. Ayn Rand never made this first step. A leftist who sincerely opposes war is already eons more libertarian than Ayn Rand ever was.Worse jet she demanded war when waged be a total war on collectivist lines without any need for a distinction to be made between the government and the people, soldiers and civilians. That makes her not only not aligned with libertarians, but also a monster.If we go to war with Russia, I hope the ‘innocent’ are destroyed with the guilty. ... Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who’s standing behind him. ~ Ayn Rand
I'm curious, where is that quote from?
Even still, saying "if" a war occurs doesn't mean a war *should* occur. The "innocent" in this case are people who are completely apathetic to oppression. I would hope that those are the people included in the destruction, too. It would not mean I'd join up in that war and kill as many people as possible. If anyone died (which always happens in war), I would prefer these people to be the ones that died.
I'm unfamiliar on her views on particular wars (i.e.Civil War or World War 2).
For more monstrous quotes see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualtiesHer non-innocents are not only those who are completely apathetic, but the whole civilian population, even those who disagree with their government. Their failure to overthrow their government or to escape the country means they can be zapped without remorse."Nazi Germany did elect its dictatorship, and therefore, even those Germans who were against Hitler were responsible for that kind of government and had to suffer the consequences."Also your implying (I think?) that she did not necessarily advocate starting wars is not correct. She did not say she advocated launching wars in those words, but she claimed just establishing "a wrong kind of government" could be initiation of agression (the same as a declaration of war) against the USA and thus give the US enough reason to "defend" itself militarily. Ie, a socialist rising to power in Venezuela and nationalising oil companies meant Venezuela had attacked the USA and Venezuelans could now be nuked from the face of the earth without remorse.Ayn Rand used the philosophy of induvidualism to advocate war along collectivist lines. I can not think of a more non-libertarian or more despicable philosophy.
Marko: For more monstrous quotes see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualtiesHer non-innocents are not only those who are completely apathetic, but the whole civilian population, even those who disagree with their government. Their failure to overthrow their government or to escape the country means they can be zapped without remorse."Nazi Germany did elect its dictatorship, and therefore, even those Germans who were against Hitler were responsible for that kind of government and had to suffer the consequences."Also your implying (I think?) that she did not necessarily advocate starting wars is not correct. She did not say she advocated launching wars in those words, but she claimed just establishing "a wrong kind of government" could be initiation of agression (the same as a declaration of war) against the USA and thus give the US enough reason to "defend" itself militarily. Ie, a socialist rising to power in Venezuela and nationalising oil companies meant Venezuela had attacked the USA and Venezuelans could now be nuked from the face of the earth without remorse.Ayn Rand used the philosophy of induvidualism to advocate war along collectivist lines. I can not think of a more non-libertarian or more despicable philosophy.
And yet she opposed American entry into WWI, WWII, the Korea War, and the Vietnam War. She also wasn't too fond of the military industrial complex.
Ayn Rand:Thus, the New Fascism exports "the bloody chaos of tribal warfare" to the rest of the world, creating a whole class of "pull peddlers" among both foreign and domestic lobbyists, who feed on the carcass of the American taxpayer, causing massive global political, social, and economic dislocations.
She isn't quite as simple as you make her out to be.
Solid_Choke: And yet she opposed American entry into WWI, WWII, the Korea War, and the Vietnam War. She also wasn't too fond of the military industrial complex.
She opposed wars on an ad-hoc basis of American self-interest, but on a moral level she gave USA the right to invade Germany or USSR even unprovoked.
Individualist: VanDoodah: Objectivism: It sees truth as always objective - nothing is ever subjective. Reason alone can attain truth. She contributed absolutely nothing to economics, and instead defended corporate capitalism in the name of the free market. Where did Rothbard (or Paul) say that truth can be anything but objective? Here's Ron Paul on the subjective theory of value: "There are some who have heard of the subjective theory of value but are hesitant to accept it because they prefer “objectivity” to “subjectivity.” Yet if consumers subjectively set prices and values by affecting supply and demand (and thus sales), this is an important objective finding. I thought there was some disagreement between Rand and Rothbard on corporate capitalism. Can you give me more on this?
I am unfamiliar with the specifics that Rothbard talked about, but Rand always has seemed careful to emphasize that corporate capitalism is a very bad thing; I've never heard anything that can even be construed to be support of corporate capitalism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_robber_barons
may be a useful link (I can't find a transcript unfortunately); around 2:30 and onward is the most relevent to your question.
rand:Something called "the military-industrial complex"--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."