Reading Anne Heller on Ayn Rand

That Ayn Rand was a great woman is disputed only by those who wish to destroy her legacy and discard her ideas without the bother of having to refute them. That Rand made some mistakes in her personal life is disputed by no one. Yet Rand led the sort of life that, had she novelized it rather than lived it, her critics would have blasted as unrealistically heroic. She lived through the Russian Revolution, escaped to America, became a world-renowned author in a foreign language, and dramatically impacted the political discourse of the nation. Hers is a life whose facts read as the stuff of legend.

Obviously Rand's greatest personal error was to get into a sexual relationship with the brilliant charlatan Nathaniel Branden, who, with his wife (of the time) Barbara, viciously deceived Rand over a number of years, as recounted by Rand herself in journal entries published in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. What is particularly perplexing to me is why Rand agreed to this affair, given that in fiction she endorsed monogamy. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart has a romantic relationship with three men over the course of her life, and never do these overlap. While Hank Rearden has an affair with Dagny while he is married, he cuts off sexual relations with his wife when the affair begins, and he acknowledges he should have divorced his wife long before that. In The Fountainhead, Dominique Francon breaks monogamy only so long as she remains a flawed character. Notably, the great heroes of the novels, John Galt and Howard Roark, wait for their women over a span of years. I do not understand Rand's affair, I wish her husband had stood up against it, and obviously it turned out horribly for Rand.

Notably, the first two major biographical works on Rand were by the Brandens, and the popular understanding of her remains colored by their smears.

It is therefore with mixed feelings that I witness the publication of the two new biographies on Rand. On one hand, from what I can tell both biographers are largely fair in their treatment of Rand, and both reveal important historical information about her life. Yet it is clear even given my still-limited familiarity with the books that they manifest significant problems. I have already made some limited criticisms of the introduction of Jennifer Burns's book, Goddess of the Market. Robert Mayhew has written a much more thorough critique.

While I am interested in Rand's biography, I am quite busy with other projects. Yet, though I had put Anne Heller's book Ayn Rand and the World She Made back on the shelf, today I took it down and read a few pages, and I remembered my idea of jotting down some notes as I read along. Now, given that I have the book out and want to read it, I'll proceed with that plan, though slowly.

I'll read the book in fits and starts and record my reactions accordingly. This post, then, will grow over time as I write down notes in the order of the book's presentation. My early questions and criticisms may be answered as I read further along. I may update previous entries as I discover new information or consider additional points. Readers with pertinent information are encouraged to send it to me via email. Perhaps my approach, though disorganized, may at least reveal some important revelations and problems in the book.

Preface

xi. I find it interesting that Heller was introduced to Rand by Suze Orman, who handed Heller a copy of Fransico d'Anconia's "money speech" from Atlas.

xii. Heller writes that Rand "had often presented this long passage [the money speech] to potential new disciples, including Alan Greenspan." Why does she use the term "disciples," which has an obvious religious connotation, rather than "supporter," "student," or "follower?" Already on the second page of the text Heller seems to be planting the dubious notion that Rand was somehow a cult-like figure, a claim cultivated by the Brandens. I'll be interested to see how Heller returns to this theme.

xii. Heller writes that Rand "became the guiding spirit of libertarianism and of White House economic policy in the 1970s and 1980s." I will be interested to see how Heller will treat Rand's frequent and pointed protestations that she was no libertarian, though obviously many libertarians loved her works and continue to value them.

Heller's claim about the "1970s and 1980s" is, at best, imprecise. Nixon served as president until August of 1974, and his policies were the opposite of what Rand endorsed. Gerald Ford was more on board with Rand's agenda. Carter served from 1977 through 1981. What about Reagan, who defined the politics of the 1980s? Rand wrote, "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan." Of course Reagan did nominate Greenspan, Rand's "disciple," to the Fed, an institution which Rand opposed. George H. W. Bush, who rounded out the '80s, was an even worse disaster by Rand's standards.

xii. Heller incorrectly refers to "...Libertarian Party founder John Hospers..." The LP was founded by a group of Colorado political activists that included David Nolan, whom I've interviewed on the matter. I notice that Heller correctly notes on page 330 that "Hospers... became the first Libertarian Party candidate for president of the United States in 1972..."

xiii. Heller writes, "'No one helped me, nor did I think it was anyone's duty to help me,' [Rand] wrote in an afterword to Atlas Shrugged. In fact, many people helped her." Yet Heller is taking this quote out of context. In the same afterword, Rand acknowledges Aristotle and her husband. Elsewhere she lavishes praise on those who helped get her books published. The sentence immediately preceding the one that Heller quotes is this: "I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me..." Obviously, then, Rand's claim is that she earned her own living.

xiii. Heller writes, "Rand wanted to be the architect of an American utopia that looked backward to the gilded age of American industrial titans." It is true that Rand legitimately saw late 1800s America as the freest period in history. But she recognized that the area remained tainted by bad philosophical premises as well as various political controls of the economy. She looked forward to a future of liberty and unfettered prosperity. Rand, who lived through the Russian Revolution, obviously knew the meaning of utopia (literally "no place"), and the political ideas she advocated, rooted in the facts of human nature, show little similarity to utopian theories. Certainly she wanted a better world, a freer world. But she saw clearly that no political system can wipe out human error, and she wrote at length about the long and continuous political struggle necessary to achieve an incrementally freer society.

xiii. Helller writes that Rand "was a far shrewder social critic than she was a visionary." Granting that Rand was a superb social critic, I will simply state my disagreement with Heller's unfounded remark about Rand's alleged paucity of vision.

xiii. I find Heller's comparison of Rand to Charles Dickens, in terms them being social critics (though with dramatically different ideologies), interesting.

xiv. Heller writes, "Because I am not an advocate for Rand's ideas, I was denied access to the Ayn Rand Papers at the Ayn Rand Institute [ARi] in Irvine, California, where copies of her unpublished letters and diaries, calendars, photographs, and other documents reside."

Heller's comment here is, at best, incomplete. Burns was granted access to the archives, despite the fact that Burns is "not an advocate for Rand's ideas."

My understanding is that Heller was denied access to select papers, not because of Heller's views of Rand, but because the owners of those papers have decided to give another biographer first crack at them, after which they will become generally available.

I have asked Jeff Britting of ARI to clarify the Institute's handling of Heller's requests, but Britting has not responded to my inquiries. I have just asked Heller to provide details about the matter, and I'll be happy to publish her response. [January 6 Update: Today I received an e-mail from Britting, who explained a bit more about the situation with the archives but said his e-mail is not intended for publication. He pointed me to the archives page and said he'd be publishing more on the matter in the future. I have not heard from Heller at this time.]

xiv. Heller lists the following sources of information for her book:
* Russian government archives, accessed "by a Russian research team"
* "Unpublished tape recordings" presented by ARI
* Taped interviews of Rand by Barbara Branden
* Freedom of Information Act documents
* "Interviews with Rand's friends" recorded by Jeff Walker and Marc Schwalb [January 6 Update: William Scott Scherk claims in the comments that Schwalb did not personally record interviews, but instead purchased recorded interviews from Barbara Branden. Heller writes, "Journalist Jeff Walker and collector Marc Schwalb let me listen to privately recorded interviews with Rand's friends..."]
* "More than fifty interviews" conducted by Heller with people who knew Rand, including Nathaniel Branden
* "Letters to and about Rand" in libraries and archives around the country

More will be posted sporadically.

Essays on Atlas

Amazon finally shipped my copy of Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (Get the paperback, unless you're willing to pay an exorbitant price for the hardback.) There's a lot of good material in there, and I've just started to read through it. I enjoyed Jeff Britting's chapter on adapting the novel for screen, based largely on Rand's own advice.

The best essay I've read so far is Darryl Wright's chapter on Rand's development of ethics between her two big novels. In brief, she went from seeing independence as the primary virtue to crowning rationality. The shift places reality -- one's relationship with reality -- at the forefront. And I hadn't directly considered the fact that independence is a virtue possible only in relation to other people; without reference to others one can be neither independent (from others) or dependent (on others). That's a big reason why rationality is primary: one must choose to think whether alone or in society.

Wright also reviews Rand's development of the idea that morality arises only within the context of the choice to live. Good stuff.

Peikoff 18

Leonard Peikoff has released his 18th podcast, which deals partly with matters of religion. My summary of the discussion should not be taken as a substitute for the original.

1. Peikoff first answers a question about the military, expressing concern that it will suffer continued problems. He adds that the military is the consequence of cultural shifts, not a main cause of them.

2. What is a hero? What one regards as a hero depends on one's moral code, Peikoff answers, but in general a hero is the "complete embodiment of a certain moral code."

3. Is there any proof for reincarnation? I consider Peikoff's discussion of this point the most interesting segment of the podcast. "What do you call evidence?" Peikoff begins. He points out that evidence is based on observation and must be integrated with the rest of our knowledge. Claims for reincarnation rest upon no means of knowledge other than some sort of mystic insight. Thus, such claims reject reason, the senses, and logic, Peikoff argues. So what's going on with claims of reincarnation? Peikoff offers four possibilities. People making claims about reincarnation might through "sheer chance" work in some factually true detail. People can selectively focus on the more seemingly plausible claims while ignoring all of the obviously ridiculous ones; any psychic can occasionally make some accurate (if vague) prediction, just by chance. Children making claims about reincarnation might be subject to coaching or tricks. Finally, people making claims about reincarnation may simply be lying.

4. Peikoff makes a few notes about thinking conceptually.

5. Did Ayn Rand use or comment on psychotropic drugs? Peikoff replies that she was "completely against them." He distinguished between alcohol, which when used in moderation can facilitate relaxation but "doesn't warp your consciousness," and a drug that "blows up your perceptual faculty" such as LSD. I basically agree with Peikoff here, but I add that some illegal stimulants, when used in moderation, also don't undermine the perceptual faculty and likely have legitimate uses. Likewise, some illegal pain-killers are very useful for certain medical issues. Of course, while Peikoff didn't discuss the issue of prohibition, Rand opposed the prohibition of any drug.

6. Is there a problem with "flooding our country with Mexicans?" Peikoff answers that immigration "should be free," on the grounds that some people in the country shouldn't be able to forcibly restrict the rights of property and contract of others. Regarding the problems of the welfare state, Peikoff notes that the proper solution is to "re-instate capitalism," not restrict immigration. Regarding culture, Peikoff points out that some Mexican immigrants may listen to Spanish music and prefer Tequila, but this hardly subverts American culture. Personally, I regard some of of the Mexican immigrants I know as more American than the xenophobic statists trying to shut down the borders.

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Miracles

Greg Perkins continues to show why Dinesh D'Souza's Christian apologetics fails. I've reviewed his first post, regarding the alleged harms of atheism. In his second short essay, Perkins explains why miracles are impossible.

Perkins offers a nice summary of the nature of causality and its validation. He explains especially well the fact that miracles do not merely refer to something unusual and unexplained; they refer to something supernatural:

We are not talking about just any improbable happening, and not even something which violates our current understanding of the world as expressed in scientific laws, like D'Souza tries to argue. The entire point of miracles is to provide evidence of divine intervention, and surprises which may only reveal a current lack of understanding can't accomplish that: by that measure, even the tricks of magicians would count as miracles. Indeed, much of what we enjoy in our modern world would have been considered miraculous in previous times, from vaccines and medications, to cars, and the Internet and on and on. Yet none of these prove or even suggest a possibility that there is a God. No, a meaningful miracle is not merely something which would violate the laws of nature as we currently understand them, but something which would be a violation of any such law we could ever discover. That is, it would have to be a violation of lawfulness itself.

The epistemological criticism is that miracles require a leap into faith beyond reason rooted in sensory evidence. Before people knew what caused lightning, many religionists said God caused it. The appropriate answer was, "I don't know what causes it -- yet." The metaphysical criticism is that supernaturalism, upon which miracles are based, contradicts the law of causality.

Peikoff 16

Leonard Peikoff makes a number of fascinating arguments in his sixteenth podcast.

Peikoff first addresses the alleged need for a mystic moral faculty. Apparently, a professor claimed the need for such a thing through a two-part hypothetical example. Is it okay to harvest the organs of one person to save the lives of five others? Peikoff agrees that this is wrong, because the one person is innocent.

But what if you see that a train is about to run over five people, and you are in a position to flip a switch so that the train instead runs over only one person on a different track? Peikoff again argues that this is wrong, again because the one person is innocent.

I agree with the thrust of Peikoff's argument, that we must not harm innocent parties. However, I'm not sure he's necessarily correct about the train track. I think that the cases of the emergency room and the train track are basically different. In the emergency room, we wouldn't change our mind regardless of the numbers involved. We would condemn as morally abhorrent the forcible harvesting of one person's organs even to save the lives of a million. But let's say we could keep a train from running over a whole station full of people, or deflect a nuclear bomb from New York City to a desert with a single inhabitant. I don't think deflecting the train is morally comparable to harvesting the organs, because only the latter case involves the initiation of force. If I were on a jury, I would automatically vote to convict the organ harvester, but I'd be troubled by the flip switcher. I'm inclined to categorize the case of the train as an emergency situation, outside of the normal moral context.

As Peikoff suggests, the train hypothetical is farfetched. If the people are walking on the track because of their own negligence, then they bear responsibility for their predicament. If the train company has created dangerous conditions, such that people tend to walk in front of trains, then that's a matter for the courts. Otherwise, the situation is by definition an emergency. While organ transplantation is an every-day event, I doubt that anyone could come up with more than a few examples from real life that are substantially similar to the train hypothetical. One reason that it strikes us as difficult is the fact that it's so unlikely. The overwhelming majority of people will never face any situation remotely like that. The fact that emergencies lie beyond our normal moral context does not imply mysticism or subjectivism.

Peikoff next discusses the possible character flaws of artists, the possibility of self-doubt for a moral person, and the necessity of athletes (and artists) to work in the moment, rather than try to evaluate their performance-in-progress from the perspective of history.

In answer to a question about artificial intelligence, Peikoff argues that it's philosophically impossible for a machine ever to think like a person. He argues that a machine cannot have volition. However, given the fact that humans arose through a process of non-volitional evolution, isn't it possible that humans might create an artificial being that acquires volition? Perhaps the distinction is that such a being would no longer be a machine.

Peikoff doesn't address the issue of human motivation here. Human choices are motivated; people have values and act on them. Thinking as a sort of action thus is necessarily tied to values. An artificial being would need the capacity for values as well as volition to be able to think like a human.

Finally, Peikoff addresses the question of whether the world was deterministic prior to humans. He said that the force in play was not determinism but causality; determinism is a specific doctrine that precludes the existence of volition.

The full podcast is worth a listen.

Update on Peikoff's Podcasts

Leonard Peikoff continues to release interesting podcasts applying Objectivist philosophy to various issues and problems. Here I review some of the highlights of his podcasts numbers 12-15 (even though only some of the issues he addresses pertain to religion).

Podcast 12

Peikoff first addresses the question of whether it's appropriate to take a "slightly less fulfilling" career in order to make more money. Peikoff answers that each person must decide what it is they want to do as a career and establish a hierarchy of values. Assuming that one's career is possible and that one can survive by pursuing it, "then money is irrelevant." (That should surprise those who deal only with caricatures of Ayn Rand.) Likewise, one should not avoid one's chosen career merely to avoid extra years of education.

I find Peikoff's answer persuasive, yet I continue to think that there are many legitimate trade-offs within a career. He gives the example of medicine versus law. However, within medicine and law, there are a great many specialties that impact salary, schedule, place of residence, and so on. Most fields are sufficiently broad that one can enter it at a wide range of salary and education. To take another example, while teaching philosophy at a college requires a Ph.D., it is possible to work on applied philosophy by writing columns and books.

In the podcast, Peikoff also reviews some interesting points about induction and liberty in medicine.

Podcast 13

To what extent must every person understand philosophy? Peikoff answers that, while a formal study of philosophy is not necessary to live a good life, one must grasp the essentials: this world exists, we gain knowledge by observing facts and thinking about them, and we should seek happiness through reason. Peikoff also discusses the importance of applying philosophy in one's own life (as opposed to adopting ideas rationalistically) and the proper relationship between children and parents.

Podcast 14

Is it proper for a soldier to have short-term sexual relationships? Yes, in the situation where a long-term relationship is impossible and death is a possibility of the job. However, one should still find value in sexual partners, avoid self-deception, and practice sex responsibly.

Can homosexuals be Objectivists? Peikoff emphatically answers yes. He points out that philosophy can address certain broad questions regarding sex -- for instance, philosophy shows that force, sadism, and promiscuity are wrong -- but homosexuality is a psychological matter. Peikoff argues that sexual orientation generally evolves early in life and doesn't "involve choice." Peikoff tires of the question, noting that he personally knows good, hard-working, romantically committed homosexuals.

In this podcast, Peikoff also discusses the "human desire for transcendence," children's rights, and science-fiction.

Podcast 15

Peikoff first answers a question about alleged falling standards in the software industry. He doesn't really answer the question; instead, he discusses all of the things he'd have to know to answer it, which to me is the more interesting exercise. Peikoff points out that there is a proper place in the market for lower-quality goods at lower prices.

Is a romantic relationship between an Objectivist and a Christian possible? Peikoff argues that the answer depends on the circumstances, such as how the Christian interprets the religion. One who believes that Christianity offers an alternative to nihilism is different than someone who believes that faith should obliterate reason. However, Peikoff concludes, such a relationship is likely to fall into a number of problems.

After discussing parental rights, Peikoff turns to the question of whether one can surrender certain rights. For example, can one agree to enter slavery or be severely beaten? Peikoff argues that such things may be properly prohibited. He suggests that government should not protect such agreements and should arrest those doing the enslaving and beating. While this thorny issue deserves more attention, Peikoff offers some interesting starting points.

Finally, how does "self-ownership" fit with individual rights? Peikoff argues that ownership properly applies to external objects, and that ownership of one's self doesn't make sense. Peikoff traces the problem to a conservative effort to reduce the politics to property rights, which, Peikoff argues, are derivative (of ethics and the right to life), not fundamental.

As always, my brief summaries should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's complete comments.

Peikoff's Eleventh Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has released his eleventh podcast. He discusses seven main questions:

1. Does a John Galt exist in the real world?
2. Is Objectivism hedonistic?
3. What should we make of Bill Gates's recent comments?
4. Are there evil geniuses in the world?
5. Does everyone appreciate art?
6. When does one develop a sense of life?
7. Is it possible to be moral but miserable?

Peikoff offers some interesting comments about Kant and psychology, but I was most interested in Peikoff's comments regarding the second question. Peikoff begins by discussing the nature of happiness; it is not a "state of emotional pleasure." Instead, it is a "long-term... enduring, fundamental pleasure" based on a relationship to reality. Hedonism suggests acting on whim. For Objectivism, happiness is not the standard of ethics, life is. Happiness is the result of a living a moral life. There is a "big difference between standard and purpose" in the Objectivist ethics, Peikoff explains.

By the way, the word is that Peikoff's podcasts will be made available through iTunes.

ARI on YouTube

The Ayn Rand Institute has released several videos on YouTube. Recent releases address the topic, "Reasons vs. Faith."

In one video, a questioner asks, By what standard does one evaluate the concepts of right and wrong in the absence of a supernatural being?

Onkar Ghate answers, "The standard becomes your life and its requirements." He goes on to explain some of those requirements and why they give rise to the need for morality in the first place. Finally, Ghate criticizes the notion that religion can offer legitimate moral absolutes. He offers the example of God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac. Such morality is actually a sort of "supernatural subjectivism," akin to personal subjectivism.

Other videos address the Old Testament, the foundations of capitalism, the clash of Western civilization, and other topics, and they are uniformly excellent.

Peikoff's Ninth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has released his ninth podcast. I've been going back and forth about where to blog about these podcasts; this time I'll put my notes on AriArmstrong.com rather than FreeColorado.com because one question involves religion. The notes that follow are my own summaries that should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's comments. In this podcast, Peikoff addresses four questions.

1. A 17-year-old atheist asks about how to relate to his religious parents. Should he pretend to pray and worship at church? Would discussing the matter with his parents somehow diminish the value of the teenager's views? Peikoff describes a very sensible course: "be pleasant, do not be argumentative, but don't lie." He points out that it's generally not possible for a child -- even an older one -- to convince parents about things of this sort, so it might be necessary for a teenager living at home to "follow what [parents] require, but within limits." Peikoff also explains why expressing one's views does not somehow taint them but rather gives them the force of an "objective presence."

While I agree with Peikoff's advice for normal situations, I would add that, in the case of particularly irrational parents who might subject their "disloyal" children to spankings, indoctrination camps, or the like, teenagers should keep their views quiet until they get out of the house. But such situations are abnormal and rare (in the West).

2. How does Peikoff stay youthful? Peikoff says the key is "ambition, passion for work," but that exercise, diet, and genetics also play a role.

3. Do (older) teenagers (and presumably those a bit older) have to have sex in order to discover their romantic values? Peikoff replies that, while one should select romantic partners who are virtuous, one cannot deduce before hand what one will find romantically attractive. But this does not imply that casual sex is the way to go.

4. What is the relationship between integrating new knowledge and disintegrating wrong ideas? Peikoff answers that the two steps generally go hand in hand; if one holds incorrect views, then one must break up the incorrect views as one discovers and integrates correct ones.

Rand on God

Ayn Rand has many things to say about religion. However, I found one of her comments in a place I didn't expect: the lengthy appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (order from Amazon.) Somebody asks her about the conceptual status of "God." She replies:

["God"] is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality -- such as omnipotence and omniscience.

Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality. (page 148)

Incidentally, I also found the material between pages 150 and 157 to contain a number of interesting comments about volition and the distinction between mind and matter.

Peikoff's Seventh Podcast (Redirect)

I briefly discuss Leonard Peikoff's seventh podcast at FreeColorado.com.

I had been mentioning the podcasts here, but, since I've devoted this web page to matters of religion, generally I'll mention Peikoff's new podcasts at the other page.

What Welfare Encourages

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart hears the story of a man who lived through a localized scheme of pure collectivism, in which the doctrine, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was the rule. The man tells her:

It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure... He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat... [H]e couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies... they got more sickness than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes -- what the hell, "the family" was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in "need" than the rest of us could ever imagine -- they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed. (pages 619-20)

Or, in economic terms, "You get more of what you subsidize."

We do not live under pure collectivism; we live under a welfare state, in which a minority of our income is forcibly redistributed to others. But, to the extent that we live under the same principle, do we see the same effects? As I've suggested, we do indeed.

Sales of Atlas Shrugged

In a previous post, I mentioned estimated sales of Ayn Rand's books. Now I have a better estimate for sales of Atlas Shrugged, Rand's most important work.

In a letter dated November 12, Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), reports, "More than six million copies of Atlas have been sold since 1957. Over the past five years, bookstore sales of Atlas have averaged more than 130,000 copies per year." Brook's letter is reproduced at ARI's web page; it discusses the organization's "Atlas Shrugged Initiative," a set of activities that capitalize on the 50th anniversary of the novel's publication and its continued success. I am continually impressed by ARI's programs and publications.

What's Wrong With Libertarianism

Craig Bolton left a comment beneath my post, "Recovering from Rationalism." While Bolton claims to defend libertarianism, his claims actually demonstrate what is wrong with libertarianism.

I do not wish to address Bolton's bizarre claim that "there is no such thing as 'induction'." I don't even know what he could possibly mean by such a statement. So let's move on to his politics.

Bolton wishes to separate voluntarist society from politics and political ideology. Opposed to "society" is government, which "is essentially about coercive force," even though government "may be useful" in suppressing violent individuals.

Thus, Bolton affirms that libertarianism is precisely what Objectivists say it is: a political or social goal explicitly detached from a moral theory.

However, it is impossible to define what properly falls within the bounds of voluntarism without a political ideology that flows from a moral ideology. Following are just a few examples.

* If a 10 year old boy "voluntarily" agrees to have sex with a 40 year old man, is that okay with libertarians? This issue has in fact been seriously debated in libertarian circles. Yet, apart from political and moral theory, libertarians have no way to resolve the issue. Objectivists, though, have a ready response that is consistent with the common view: the concept of voluntarism rests on the rationality of adult people. A child has not yet developed into a fully rational person. Therefore, a child is not in the position to consent to certain things, such as sex, marriage, business contracts, and the purchase of dangerous objects. The extent to which libertarians answer the question (in a non-crazy way) is the extent to which they abandon libertarianism.

* Let us say that you are throwing a barbecue party in your back yard, and either there is no fence or the gate is open. Then an uninvited religious nut comes into the yard and starts delivering a sermon. Is this "voluntary?" Did the nut initiate any force? If so, how? All he did is go on a walk and start talking. Where's the force? Is the answer property rights? But "Libertarianism is not about... asserting that 'people have rights'." A theory of property rights requires an overarching political theory that rests on a moral theory as to why people have a right to their property. And any reasonable person will call the police -- agents of the government -- if the nut refuses to leave.

* What about people who "voluntarily" offer copyrighted music for "free" downloading? The legitimacy of copyright is often debated among libertarians.

* Does abortion limit the voluntary behavior of an embryo, or does a ban on abortion limit the voluntary behavior of the mother? Libertarianism has no answer.

Bolton also shows that libertarianism, as I've argued, tends to descend into anti-state reactionism. For Bolton, coercive government is fundamentally at odds with voluntary society, even though he thinks that government can be useful. Because libertarians dismiss moral theory as the foundation for politics, they assume that everything would be fine, if only nasty government would leave people alone. Yet libertarians are inconsistent about this, because most of them realize at some level that we need a government to protect our rights, and that we do need a moral and political theory of rights. The reactionism of libertarianism manifests in a variety of ways, from conspiracy theories about 9/11 to anarchism. Libertarians who do not hate government tend to become pragmatists, for they have already dismissed moral principles as the basis for politics.

I understand that this post is brief, so any reader who does not follow my arguments here is encouraged to read my lengthier critiques, starting with "More Libertarians Against Liberty," which in turn links to additional articles.

A condensed version of Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," is published in Ayn Rand's The Voice of Reason.

Good Objectivist Sources

"Justin" asks:

Ari,

Could you point me to a good source for answers regarding the length versus strength, etc., in regards to life being a standard of value? I get asked this question a lot when I try to defend my position, and I don't think my retorts are satisfactory.

If you know of good discussions of this issue, other than Dr. Piekoff's Understanding Objectivism, please let me know. ( I am going to borrow that series from a friend, but I am currently away on an internship and don't have access to it).

The name of the course by Darryl Wright (that I couldn't remember before) is "Advanced Topics in Ethics." (Diana Hsieh reminded me of this, and she also recommends the lecture.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's available for sale.

I'm working my way through three sets of Leonard Peikoff's lectures: "Understanding Objectivism," "Objectivism Through Induction," and "Advanced Seminars on Objectivism." I'm in the middle of the middle course, and I've found the material to be extremely illuminating. Not only did Peikoff make me aware of the problem of rationalism, he made me aware of some of the specific ways that I had become a rationalist. More importantly, he offers excellent guidance for how to overcome rationalism with an inductive, reality-based approach. Of course, the basic text to accompany these lectures is Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The book is easy to get and to afford; the lectures are not. But, again, those who have trouble with the cost of the lectures can look for a loaner copy or buy a copy to share.

Since the work of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, the best work on ethics is that of Tara Smith. Her book Viable Values covers the foundations of ethics; her follow-up book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics reviews the main arguments of the first book before launching into a detailed treatment of the virtues. Smith also helped me to understand the significance of life as the standard of value. And her latest book is invaluable for reaching a better understanding of why we need the specific virtues, what they entail, and how they should be lived. If I had read her book at a young age, and taken the trouble to understand and apply it, I would have saved myself a great deal of trouble and achieved my values with greater ability.

So, if you read one book over the next few months, make it Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. It is a wonderful, clearly written, and amazingly useful book.

"No Clash of Interests"

In Atlas Shrugged, the government puts Hank Rearden on trial for the "crime" of selling his metal to a willing buyer. Part of the courtroom exchange sheds light on Ayn Rand's view that, in a free and virtuous society, people's interests do not clash in any fundamental way.

"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"

"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."

"What... what do you mean?"

"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."

"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognize its right to do so?"

"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes -- by refusing to buy my products."

This is signature Ayn Rand. And the idea conveyed in the passage is central to her philosophy. Rand holds that people normally produce the values they need to live. One person's productive achievement is not another person's loss; it is another person's potential gain. Rearden produces metal, creating wealth from the goods and labor that he purchases from others. Then he trades his metal for the goods and services produced by others so that he can live and enjoy his life. In a free society, Rearden's interests align with the interests of "the public," which is taken only to mean the counting of particular individuals. In a free exchange, both parties benefit. But if some people are able to loot others, the consequence is to reward the looters at the cost of the producers and encourage others to get in on the looting.

"Freedom Has Failed"

This quote from Atlas Shrugged, from the villain Wesley Mouch, chilled me. The context is that Mouch and his gang have passed directive after directive, slowly strangling the economy. Mouch is considering the imposition of new, more expansive controls:

Freedom has been given a chance and has failed. Therefore, more stringent controls are necessary. Since men are unable and unwilling to solve their problems voluntarily, they must be forced to do it. (page 503, 35th Anniversary Edition)

This quote immediately made me think of the health-policy debate in Colorado. How many times have "reformers" blamed the allegedly "free market" in medicine -- for the problems caused by decades of federal and state political controls? Since men are unable and unwilling to purchase "comprehensive" health insurance "voluntarily," they must be forced to do it.

Recovering from Rationalism

I am a recovering rationalist. I thought I was pretty smart, back in 1992 (it must have been), when I first got my copy of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I read it, understood it, and was even ready to start correcting it. Or so I thought. In fact, I did not understand Objectivism, at all. Or, rather, I understood only a few of its tenets, and those poorly. I was certainly not prepared to apply Objectivist principles consistently in my own life. My main problem was rationalism. I understood the philosophy as an interconnected system of ideas, but I did not understand how those ideas were related to the real world.

Take, for instance, my (lack of) understanding of "life" as the standard of value. I wrote thousands of words over the internet explaining the problems with that position. For example, how is one to choose between length of life and strength of life? I created long, rationalistic chains of arguments that (I thought) demonstrated the absurdities of holding "life" as the standard. Of course, what I was not doing is looking at what life really is. I was not drawing the principles from the facts; I was trying to derive principles from floating deductions.

Another example may be found in my interaction with libertarianism. Within a few years, I went from enthusiastically promoting libertarianism to denouncing libertarianism. In 2002, I was still defending libertarianism, though I was starting to pay more attention to certain of its problems. I made two basic arguments in defense of libertarianism. First, "If libertarianism is roughly wanting government only to protect property rights, then Objectivism is a type of libertarianism..." In other words, I was starting with (dubious) definitions and then proceeding deductively, rather than looking at the content of libertarianism. Second, I argued that the Objectivist case against libertarianism makes little sense, because Objectivists interact with others who are not principled. I was attempting a reductio ad absurdum, rather than looking at the relevant facts about libertarianism.

I revisited the issue in 2004. I was becoming much more aware of the problems within the libertarian movement, but I still tied myself to libertarianism using rationalistic arguments. I again tried to point out the internal contradictions of criticisms of libertarianism, to reduce those criticisms to absurdity. And I remained stuck on definitions as a starting point: "a single term can[not] be used to name only a single concept. ... [W]e frequently assign the same word to multiple concepts, and we rely upon context and explicit definitions to make clear our meaning." In short, I thought I could re-define libertarianism into respectability. A bit later I wrote of "two libertarianisms" and declared that, by the correct "definition, I am a libertarian, I have been a libertarian for many years, and I anticipate I will always be a libertarian."

By 2005, I was deeply alarmed by goings on in the libertarian movement, and I was beginning to look at what libertarianism is, rather than attempt to reconstruct it according to my prior definition. A month later, I declared, "I am not a libertarian." I summarized my reasons: "For I do not want to be lumped together with the pragmatists, reactionaries, tribalists, nihilists, hedonists, rationalists, subjectivists, idealists (of the Platonic variety), propagandists, utopians, and kooks of the libertarian movement." This was a big development for me. I had finally beat my head against enough concrete problems to begin to abandon my rationalistic view of libertarianism. However, I did not at that point explicitly understand that what I was starting to do is replace rationalism with an inductive approach. I continue to struggle with overcoming rationalism.

Unfortunately, the best Objectivist material about using induction to learn philosophy is not easy to access. A lecture by Darryl Wright helped me to understand the ethical significance of "life." (Unfortunately, I cannot at this point recall the title of that lecture.) Far and away the most helpful material for me has been Leonard Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lectures. This outstanding material explicitly deals with the problems of rationalism. It is quite expensive; those who have a problem with the cost might consider finding a loaner copy or buying a copy to share. I've started Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction," which so far is also quite good. He discusses how to inductively approach issues such as causality, reason as man's means of survival, egoism, and other critical topics.

I am thrilled that Peikoff is making available on his web page a podcast in which he answers questions. He has not so far dealt explicitly with the topic of rationalism versus induction in philosophy, but his answers explode the rationalistic premises of various questions. For example, in his new podcast, he explains why the possibility of human instincts cannot be derived from evolutionary history. Instead, he suggests, we should look to see whether people in fact have instincts. So those trying to overcome rationalistic tendencies can listen to Peikoff's answers at the level of how they treat rationalism versus induction.

Craig Biddle Coming to CO for Atlas Shrugged Talk

I just got this announcement: Craig Biddle, author of Loving Life and editor of The Objective Standard, will speak in Boulder on November 15.

"In this talk, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, Craig Biddle presents the basic principles of rational egoism, contrasts them with the alternatives, and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand and embrace them."

Thursday, November 15 2007, 6:30pm - 7:30pm
Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado at Boulder (Campus Map)

Ayn Rand Lexicon Online

This is spectacular! The Ayn Rand Institute just announced that the Ayn Rand Lexicon is now available online, appropriately enough at AynRandLexicon.com. You can search by key words or explore the alphabetical listing. So, if you ever wanted to know what Rand thought about something, this may well give you the answer.

Just for fun, I clicked on a topic at random. I came up with "Isolationism." Rand describes one "view of foreign policy which is wrecking the United States to this day: the suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all countries except our own." Her description continues to hold for the foreign policy of the United States.

D'Anconia Warns Against Repression

Recently I read Francisco d'Anconia's monumental speech about the virtue of money in Atlas Shrugged (pages 387-391 in my Signet 35th Anniversary Edition). In answer to someone who quips that "money is the root of all evil," d'Anconia argues that the root of money is production, and the root of production is the reasoning mind. It is a speech well worth perusing, and it is often discussed.

On this reading, I was equally struck by the discussion that d'Anconia holds with Hank Rearden immediately after the speech. I have heard the claim that Atlas Shrugged encourages emotional repression. However, Ayn Rand presents some of her heros as emotionally repressed precisely to point out why that's a problem. Rearden mentions some "fool woman." D'Anconia replies:

That woman and all those like her keep evading the thoughts which they know to be good. You keep pushing out of your mind the thoughts which you believe to be evil. They do it, because they want to avoid effort. You do it, because you won't permit yourself to consider anything that would spare you. They indulge their emotions at any cost. You sacrifice your emotions as the first cost of any problem. They are willing to bear nothing. You are willing to bear anything. They keep evading responsibility. You keep assuming it. But don't you see that the essential error is the same? Any refusal to recognize reality, for any reason whatever, has disastrous consequences. There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. Don't ignore your own desires, Mr. Rearden. Don't sacrifice them. Examine their cause. There is a limit to how much you should have to bear. (page 394)

So, Rand points out, emotionalism, letting one's emotions guide one's life without rational oversight, stems from essentially the same error as emotional repression. That error is evasion, the pushing out of one's mind relevant knowledge or questions. Because Rearden tends to evade certain types of facts, he becomes emotionally repressed. This leads him to actively help those who are trying to tear him down and to damn his own desire for romantic sex. In presenting emotional repression in certain characters, Rand is exploring the roots of such repression so that it can be overcome.

Harry Potter's Success

The Harry Potter books have been phenomenally successful. CNN reports, "The last installment of the Harry Potter series sold a record-breaking 11.5 million copies in the U.S. in the first 10 days on sale... To date, more than 350 million copies of the seven books in the Harry Potter series have been sold worldwide."

And Potter is very much an international phenomenon. The Guardian reports:

Publisher Bloomsbury [of Britain] revealed [on September 18, 2007] that its English-language version of the boy wizard's final tale has sold as many copies overseas as in the UK. In Germany alone [one million] copies were sold in the last month. Pre-orders in China were more than 200% higher than those of the previous book.... [T]he untranslated Harry Potters have seen huge demand from impatient fans who want the books as soon as they come out.

The books have sold so well in part because they are very well written fantasy stories with richly drawn characters. Even though Harry and his friends can do amazing things, it's easy to imagine living in their world while reading the books. But part of the reason the books have sold so well is that Rowling presents a strong moral message of courage and strong character that children are obviously hungry for.

Rowling's sales figures are indeed impressive. By way of comparison, Ayn Rand wrote some of the most influential novels of the 20th Century. Yet, according to a biography from 1995, "Every book by Ayn Rand published in her lifetime is still in print, and hundreds of thousands of copies are sold each year, so far totalling more than twenty million." Even assuming robust sales since then, Rand's books have sold less than ten percent the numbers of Rowling's books. (No doubt sales of Atlas Shrugged will get a boost when and if the movie ever reaches the screen.)

But numbers don't mean that much. What will be the lasting cultural influence of, for example, The Da Vinci Code? The reason that Rand's books have had such influence is that they present in dramatic form philosophic ideas of profound personal importance to the reader. The Harry Potter books present some important ideas, but they are not as profound, as original, or as integrated into the story.

The main reason that Rowling has had and will continue to have such profound cultural influence is that she is reaching millions of children when they are first exploring ideas and first thinking about moral choices. Harry and his best friends belong to the school house of Gryffindor, the house of the brave, and Rowling presents an inspiring image of moral courage. (I'll have more to say about Rowling's themes at a later time.)

But perhaps the best thing about Rowling's books is that they have encouraged children to grapple with a complex story and difficult themes. The children who have graduated from those books will be prepared to read -- and eager to find -- other great and inspiring works of literature, such as Rand's novels.

Dr. Pritchett on Freedom

Inspired by the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, I decided to read the great novel again. I'm nearly a third of the way through. The novel is a magnificent accomplishment -- and it's as though I'm reading it for the first time. The first third focusses on the characters of Dagny Taggart, the great railroad executive; Hank Rearden, the steel producer; and Francisco d'Anconia, the copper owner who has apparently fallen to depravity. The dramatic tension, as when Dagny and Hank meet at a party or celebrate an accomplishment, is gripping.

I thought that I would include a few quotes on this web page. They're not necessarily the most central quotes; they're just what happen to grab me. Here's what Dr. Pritchett has to say about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces business owners to sell off all but one enterprise:

But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free. (page 129)

Ridiculous? Nobody would ever actually say that? But my previous entry quotes just such a statement.

Atlas Shrugged -- The Game

Often I come across tidbits in the popular media and think, "Wow, that could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged." Indeed, Ayn Rand's ability to read and predict cultural trends can seem uncanny. So, as a fun way to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the publication of the novel, I'm suggesting Atlas Shrugged -- The Game.

It's simple to play. Just blog the best example you can find from (let's say) the past eight weeks of commentary that sounds like it could have been lifted straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. I imagine that nearly all examples will sound like the voice of a villain, unfortunately. Edit out specifics and leave only the general points. Let's give it, say, till the end of October. Here's my entry for the sort of mealy-mouthed gibberish common among Atlas's political "reformers:"

It's heating up. The debate... is picking up speed... Unfortunately, this naturally leads to polarization of opposing views regarding a critically important issue for all of us. And this cheapens and oversimplifies the discussion.

Our [industry] can't be corrected with one liners and political scoring points.

We need cooperation. We need compromise. We don't need political hoopla.

Thankfully, the continued work of the... Commission is a good example of how a group of people with differing views can work together on a critical issue. It would be premature to grade their efforts. However, they are making progress and we all should support their endeavor.

Source: Dr. Michael J. Pramenko, "Time to find people 'medical homes'," Grand Junction Free Press, September 28, 2007.

Celebrating Atlas Shrugged

From the Colorado Freedom Report:

"Today marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's seminal novel about producers who go on strike to oppose their treatment at the hands of political plunderers. The novel celebrates the greatness possible to the freed human mind in pursuit of life-enhancing values. The work unabashedly endorses the moral doctrine of rational self-interest. ...

"Atlas Shrugged lays out the vision of heroic people who refuse to compromise their principles -- and thereby refuse to compromise their happiness. Such people realize the full value of life on earth, and they therefore apply their reason and efforts to the goal of living. They hold productiveness as a moral virtue, and they seek to protect the political liberty that allows individuals to act, create, and trade according to their own judgment."