This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ayn Rand & Murray Rothbard: Diverse Champions Of Liberty

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Tibor R. Machan via Acting-Man.com,

Differences and Similarities

No one should attempt to treat Ayn Rand and Murray N. Rothbard as uncomplicated and rather similar defenders of the free society although they have more in common than many believe.  As just one example, neither was a hawk when it comes to deploying military power abroad.*  There is evidence, too, that both considered it imprudent for the US government to be entangled in international affairs, such as fighting dictators who were no threat to America.  Even their lack of enthusiasm for entering WW II could be seen as quite similar.

 

Ayn Rand, famed writer and founder of the Objectivist movement

Photo credit: Cornell Capa / Magnum

 And so far as their underlying philosophical positions are concerned, they both can be regarded as Aristotelians.  In matters of economics they were unwavering supporters of the fully free market capitalist system, although while Rand didn’t find corporations per se objectionable, arguably Rothbard had some problems with corporate commerce, especially as it manifest itself in the 20th century.  One sphere in which they took very different positions, at least at first glance, is whether government is a bona fide feature of a genuinely free country. Rand thought it is, Rothbard thought it wasn’t.  Yet the reason Rothbard opposed government was that it depended on taxation, something Rand also opposed, so even here where the difference between them appears to be quite stark, they were closer than one might think.

 

RothbardChalkboard

Murray Rothbard, introducing his students to French economist Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (widely regarded as a “proto-Austrian” today)

Photo credit: Roberto Losada Maestre

 

When intellectuals such as Rand and Rothbard have roughly the same political-economic position, it isn’t that surprising that they and their followers would stress the difference between them instead of the similarities.  Moreover, in this case both had a similar explosive personality, with powerful likes and dislikes not just in fundamentals but also in what may legitimately be considered incidentals–music, poetry, novels, movies and so forth.

Yet what for Rothbard might be something tangential, even incidental, to his political economic thought, for Rand could be considered more germane since Rand thought of herself–and many think of her–as a philosopher (roughly of the rank of a Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte).  Rothbard wrote little in the sphere of metaphysics and epistemology, although he was well informed in these branches of philosophy, while Rand chimed in, quite directly, on several philosophical issues, having written what amounts to a rather nuanced long philosophical essay on epistemology and advanced ideas in metaphysics, such as on free will, causality, and the nature of universals.  Her followers, such as Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Tara Smith, Alan Gotthelf, James Lennox, and David Kelley, among others, have all made contributions to serious discussions in various branches of philosophy.

 

Disagreements on Government and Market Exchanges

The central dispute, however, between Rothbard and his followers and Rand and hers focuses, as I have already noted, on whether a free country would have a government.  The debate is moved forward in the volume edited by Roderick Long and me,  Anarchism versus Minarchism; Is Government Part of a Free County (Ashgate, 2006).

 

they-live

A scene from John Carpenter’s famous documentary “They Live” – the State ultimately enforces its diktats and demands by threatening and exercising violence.

Photo credit: John Carpenter

Even apart from their disagreement about the justifiability of government in a bona fide free country, there is the difference between them about the subjectivity of (some) values. Rothbard holds, for example, that “’distribution’ is simply the result of the free exchange process, and since this process benefits all participants on the market and increases social utility, it follows directly that the ‘distributional’ results of the free market also increase social utility.”  The part here that shows the difference between Rothbard and Rand is where Rothbard says that the “free exchange process … benefits all participants on the market.”

Maybe most of them benefit in such exchanges, but some do not.  Suppose someone exchanges five ounces of crack cocaine for an ounce of heroin.  Arguably, at least as Ayn Rand would very likely maintain, neither of these traders gains a benefit in this exchange, assuming that both commodities being traded are objectively harmful to the traders’ health.  Both are, then, harmed, objectively speaking, even if they believed they would benefit.

This may be a minor matter but it isn’t, not at least if Rothbard’s idea is generalized to apply to all market exchanges.  True, from a purely economic viewpoint both parties in free exchanges tend to take it or believe that they are benefited by these.  But this belief could well be false.

Now of course Rand would agree with Rothbard that just because people engage in trade that’s harmful to them, it doesn’t follow that anyone, least of all the government, is authorized to ban such trade or otherwise interfere with it.  Such matters as what may or may not harm free market traders from the trades they choose to engage in are supposed to be dealt with in the private sector.  Family, friends, doctors, nurses, et al., or other agents devoted to advising people what they should and should not do are the only ones who may launch peaceful educational or advisory measures to remedy the private misjudgments and misconduct of peaceful market participants.  Such an approach sees public policies such as the war on drugs as entirely unjustified even if consuming many drugs is objectively damaging to those doing so.

In any case, the Randian view doesn’t assume that all free trade benefits those embarking on them.  Let me, however, return to the major bone of contention between Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, namely, whether government is (or could be) part of a free country.  Given that Rothbard believes government cannot exists without deploying the rights-violating policy of taxation, his view is understandable, but the underlying assumption that gives rise to it is questionable.

Rand did indeed question it in her discussion of funding government in the chapter “Government Financing in a Free society” in The Virtue of Selfishness, at least by implication, when she argued that government can be financed without taxation. If she is correct, then Rothbard or his followers need to mount a different attack on the idea that the free society can have a government.  (And some have indeed made this argument, including me in, for example, my “Anarchism and Minarchism, A Rapprochement,” Journal des Economists et des Estudes Humaines, Vol. 14, No. 4 [December 2002], 569-588).

Rand proposed that instead of taxation, which involves the rights-violating policy of confiscation of private property, a government could be funded by way of a contract fee, a lottery, or some other peaceful method.  Whether this is so cannot be addressed here but it shows that Rand and Rothbard were not very distant from each other on the issue of the justifiability of government in a free country. Perhaps the term “government” is ill advised when applied to whatever kind of law-enforcement institution would be involved in bona fide free countries. But this is not what’s crucial–a rose by any other name is still a rose and a law-enforcement, judicial or defense agency in a free society is what is at issue here, not what term is used to call it.  So, again, Rand and Rothbard seem closer than usually believed.

Yet it’s not just about taxation for many who follow Rothbard.  Most also hold that the idea is mistaken that government–or whatever it is called–needs to serve a society occupying a continuous instead instead of Swiss cheese like region.  The idea of a disparately located country, without a continuous territory and with the possibility of all parts being accessible by law enforcers without the need of international treaties, makes sense to Rothbardians.  Not, however, to Randians, it can be argued, not unless the familiar science fiction transportation option of being “beamed up” from one area to anther (so that law enforcement can reach all those within its jurisdiction) is available.  Otherwise enforcement of the law can be easily evaded by criminals.

 

Conclusion

Again, this isn’t the place to resolve the dispute between Rand & her followers and Rothbard and his.  This brief discussion should, however, indicate where their differences lie.  It doesn’t at all explain, however, why the different parties to the debate tend often to be quite acrimonious toward each other.  What may explain this, though, is a simple point of psychology.  Nearly all champions of a fully free, libertarian society are also avid individualists and often tend to insist on what might be called the policy: My way or the highway!  Even when their differences don’t warrant it.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:10 | 6486972 Pipetex
Pipetex's picture

"Money makes you smart, money makes you right, money makes you handsome... Money is the great equalizer that separates those usefull to society from those that not"

Now try to explain that to the poor fat lady wiping your ass in the geriatric...

Better be respecfull with everybody as you don't know wich part they may play in the future.

The only "wise" side of Rand was that she sold redemption to the winners of a rigged system.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:17 | 6486981 gizmotron
gizmotron's picture

Tired of people trying to shoehorn Western demise into partisan blame (it's the left's fault, it's the right's fault). You want to see the root of demise? Look no further than corruption of politics, on both sides of the aisle. You're not going to find what you're looking for in partisanship. Your representative now spends over half their time soliticiting "campaign money" from their 0.1% wealthiest constituants. Fewer than 200 families provide over 80% of all SuperPAC funding.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 12:26 | 6487383 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

And less than 50% of people with the right to vote exercise it; who's to blame for that?

K-Street and SuperPACs run rampant because Americans shirked their duties decades if not centuries ago.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:16 | 6486993 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yawn...

A Parade of Deluded Apologists...

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:17 | 6486995 Marley
Marley's picture

"Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action"  Kind of "self-absorbed." 

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 10:20 | 6487001 ajkreider
ajkreider's picture

Rand is a philosopher of no rank. She was a decent popular writer, but not even at the rank of an Iris Murdoch.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 11:25 | 6487190 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

It seems there are two kind of people in the world: those who follow others, and everyone else.

Why would a smart person have the need to be a "follower" of someone else?

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 12:16 | 6487297 Charming Anarchist
Charming Anarchist's picture

Each one of us is propelled into this world in a state of submission/dependence without the luxury/wisdom/privilege of free independent choice.  That is not a bad thing.  That is simply nature.  Did you ever ask the question:  Why did my mother not squat her dilating pussy, drop me on the ground and walk away leaving me to the wolves?  I do not have an answer to that question --- I am just grateful to my crazy mother for the risks/sacrifices she made. 

 

You and I are only able to contemplate the principle of freedom because our parents took absolute control over our lives --- whithout which we would all be dead. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.  Reality is an amorphous constantly changing continuum between freedom and slavery. 

 

Before being born, each individual --- man or animal --- spends his first physical experience feeling/hearing mother's heartbeat and blood circulating all around him like electrons are supposed to orbit a nucleus.  When mother is scared, baby feels it.  When mother is sleeping and calm, baby feels it.  When mother is fighting, baby feels it. 

When mother jumps up to run away, baby does not need to ask the question:  What the fuck is she doing? Should I follow her??  Is she running for safety or is she running over a cliff into danger?? The wisest and safest gamble is to follow mama bear because of nature: there are no other choices.  Animals do not have/need language to figure out the benefits of hierarchy and mama bear does not have the time/ability to lecture her cubs.  Where mankind differs is that animals can/do NOT lie. 

You either trust the people with a trustworthy track-record or you fend for yourself.  That is a law of nature.  The individual can not possibly know/learn everything on his own.  He must  gamble with the indivuduals around him and get along. 

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 12:33 | 6487407 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

Each one of us is propelled into this world in a state of submission/dependence without the luxury/wisdom/privilege of free independent choice.

OK.  Thanks for the explanation.  I'm only very recently making a study of the social sciences.

So you say it goes back to our infant-mother relationship, which all of have have unless we're a "wolf-child" of some sort.

Well, you sir, have explained why I've never been a follower of anyone or anything.  Early on I must have realized that if I was going to survive I sure as hell couldn't rely on anything from my mother.

Hmm.  It makes me of a mind to go look up some of the retrospective mock-psychoanalyses of famous people.

 

 

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 13:13 | 6487440 Charming Anarchist
Charming Anarchist's picture

Fair enough. 

In case it matters, I up-voted you because I believe you are right:  there are 2 kinds of people.  I just do not see the distinction as being inherently a bad thing. 

In fact, I do not care to objectively see the distinction because it exists only in the eye of the beholder.  You can not objectively be certain whether a "follower" is actually following or whether the "follower" is only setting up the pretense of being submissive. For all we know, mama bear takes care of her cubs because God told her that nobody is going to pay her a social security pension, nobody is going to feed her when she is crippled nor wipe her ass in her old age.  You get what you give --- that is the safest bet on any law of human nature. 

Regardless, I am not going to pretend all parents --- man or animal -- are good parents.  My parents gave me bad advice too.  We are all the product of survival of the fittest and none of us can survive on our own.  We are alive today because most of our forefathers made wise/safe gambles and were perhaps lucky. 

I believe the concept of "luck" is more aptly envisioned as not-taking-stupid-chances-on-shit-you-do-not-know because frankly, aside from dealing with human evil, everything on God's earth is quite predictable.  Humans have no objective need to do anything but follow tradition in order to survive.  Most scientific inquiry is interesting but largely unnecessary and certainly nowhere near as fun as making babies. In the spirit of Ayn Rand, here is my premise: having sex and accepting/dealing with the consequences is objectively better than any other human action.  I do not care who disagrees with my premise. 

 

----

 

If you want to study social sciences, I suggest that you start with a skeptical mind about human action.  Stop distinguishing between human, animal and mineral.  Treat humans as if you would treat wild animals.  Deny humans any more interesting properties and from that point, try to find how they deserve your special attention. 

If a bear approaches you, her motives do not matter.  For all you know, it could be a human/robot in a bear costume.  If the sun "rises" in the east every day of your life, it does you no good to understand WHY or HOW it happens --- let alone trying to change/control it.  For all you know, the "sun" could be a magical spirit --- knowing the truth makes no difference to you.  The freedom of having 24hours sunshine or 24hours darkness does not exist.  Either you prepare for next year's harvest the right/smart/safest gamble way or you waste/risk your energies seeking a different untested gamble. 

Mon, 08/31/2015 - 01:37 | 6489246 SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture

If you want to study social sciences, I suggest that you start with a skeptical mind about human action.  Stop distinguishing between human, animal and mineral.  Treat humans as if you would treat wild animals.  Deny humans any more interesting properties and from that point, try to find how they deserve your special attention. 

Well, if we had just met at a party, after these exchanges one of us would be suggesting that we take our conversation elsewhere.

I do thank you very kindly once more, Yes, normal people have always found me quite odd and me likewise.  But you are the very first to help me find a reason for it that makes sense.  It was my mother!

Please email me at trampy.girl @ yandex.com .  You and I have a great deal we could talk about.  I've been a scientist of the material world with only brief forays into risk perception and decision theory/prospect theory.

I discovered Harry Elmer Barnes eighteen months ago and began buying up and reading his books, which led me to study the social sciences quite intensively.  Here's only a partial list of the books I have read this summer:

Barnes, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Caxton Printers, 1953.

Barnes, History and Social Intelligence, Borzoi Book printed 1926, reprinted 1973, Revisionist Press.

Barnes, An Introduction to the History of Sociology, University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Barnes and Harold Becker, Social Thought from Lore to Science, Vol. 1, Harren Press, 1953.

Barnes, The History and Prospects of the Social Sciences, ????, reprinted 1975, Revisionist Press.

W. Trotter, Instincts of the Herd in Peace & War, 1916, Unwin, London.

E. A. Ross, Social Control: A survey of the foundations of order, Case Western Reserve Universty Press, 1969.

Gusatave Le Bon, Crowd Psychology, 1895 in French, a very shitty books-on-demand reprint ARGH, gotta get it in French.

From Le Bon at p. 110:

1. The Leaders of Crowds ... In every social sphere from the highest to the lowest, as soon as people cease to be isolated [emphasis added] they speedily fall under the influence of a leader. The majority of people, especially among the masses, do not possess clear and reasoned ideas on any subject whatsoever outside their own specialty.

 

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 12:24 | 6487379 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"from a purely economic viewpoint both parties in free exchanges tend to take it or believe that they are benefited by these.  But this belief could well be false."

In short, the rational market hypothesis simply isn't.

Sun, 08/30/2015 - 13:44 | 6487580 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Both parties do benefit from the exchange unless you are Bernie Madoff selling a Ponzi. This is called "fraud".

John Deere makes a tractor. You give them money, they give you a tractor. They pay nice Christmas bonuses, you grow more crops with less labor.

This is how the human condition has advance throughout history.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!