John Mace says Ayn Rand “detested” the Libertarian Party. Does anybody know why?
I used to be part of a college “Objectivist” club and often other members talked about the fact that we were not Libertarians and such, but they never said much about why.
This is a part of a quote on the AynRand.org website answering the question
“Does Objectivism support Libertarianism?”
“…To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.”
[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]
I think Mind got at least part of it. I don’t remember the whole deal, but I do remember reading something of hers where she just railed on the Libs. It wasn’t just a cold, rational argument, you could tell she detested them. It could’ve been that she didn’t like sharing the limelight of “her” philosophy. She’s also known to have enforced a rather rigid orthodoxy in her followers. If you strayed form the path, you were tossed out on your ears more likely than not.
Her only “official” intellectual heir is Leonard Peikoff whom I’ve seen a few times on O’Reilly, but otherwise is not too visible. Here’s what he says about Libertarianism. Not the reference to “Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty.”
FYI, for those who don’t know, Alan Greenspan was one of her “inner cirlce” of followers in his youth. Not just a fan, but actively participating in her discussion groups and publishing some articles in at least one of her non-fiction books. I think it was “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal”.
They passed out the anti-libertarian pamphlets at every larger event the club did, so I know that was a major focus area.
At home I have a copy of the Ayn Rand CD with most everything she’s ever said.
Another reason she would oppose Libertarians, is because a couple groups splintered from Objectivism and became forces in Libertarianism. She had an affair with this guy and then got really mad and “excommunicated” him from the group and he ended up taking a lot of support for Objectivism into Libertarianism.
It was a pretty messed up cult that messed me up as well. But from what I’ve heard it was a very big thing in its heyday, and when the whole thing split up, it created a lot of support for Libertarianism.
Was that Nathaniel Brandon, or was there another guy?
I didn’t think NB was a part of the Libs.
It was Nathaniel. He has some sort of semi-objectivist website, and also the libertarian site free-market.net has lots of articles and links praising Ayn Rand and Objectivism. It seems the hatred only goes one way.
A whole bunch of new objectivist sites are out there that are not supported or endorsed by the Objectivist heir Peikoff, and most of them seem to be working well with other Libertarian sites.
Yeah, I noticed that. Thanks for the info.
Because I am libertarian in my position for americans.
I do not give, nor require people of other lands to be libertarian, that is up to them. All rights and responsiblities of freedom do not apply to them.
I do not take a position on foreigners(particularly those against freedom of any form), I do not believe that they have a right to come here(no open borders) anytime they want to, or do anything they want to, it is not up to me to give/honor any of the (bill of rights ) rights to people of other countries, I am not against putting tarrifs on people or products of other countries.
(yet I am totally against putting an income tax on americian citizens and/or american companies operating within our borders, etc. )
If you are american, if you have an american business here, if you hire workers here, then I will leave you alone, I wont tax you, I wont regulate you, I wont tarrif you . You are free to make as much money as you want. I wont even tax your dividends! You can hire any american citizen that you want, at whatever pay that you want to pay.
On the other hand, if you are a foreigner, I can charge you fees, tarrifs, I can stop you or your goods from entering this country, or at least charge/tax/tarrif you or your foreign goods.
You are confusing a libertarian country with a libertarian world. I do not believe in a Libertarian World wide government.
Free trade and open borders are fine concepts, but they only work with other countires who have the same principles as you.
In certain countries, if they are also libertarian, then perhaps we can do away with some, or all types of restricitions and tarrifs between our two countries, provided that we have complete freedom of movement, of labor, and capital, and complete honoring of each others rights between the two countries(If i can get on a plane, and take my handgun with me to your country, and get a job at a factory or office in your country, if I can freely sell my products in your country and you see nothing wrong with that, then perhaps we can make out a free bi-lateral free trade agreement between us. Maybe even make a peace treaty between us. Maybe even allow us to send our workers back and forth between us.
I am NOT!! against “exporting jobs”, per se.
YOu misunderstand.
I am actually ““for”” the exporting of jobs, as long as jobs are allowed to export both ways. e.g., as long as there is outsourcing being done by indian companies hiring americans to do the work and laying off indian workers.
I am against it (“ONLY”)when jobs are available in one country, but not in the other. I am against it when indians work come here, but we cannot work there. I am against it when we have an H1-B visa program, a federal loan program to give jobs and money to indians who want to work here, but yet, India, has no such programs to bring americans over there, and to lend money to americans who want to start busineses in india. I am against it when you require a company in Ohio to not pollute, but you allow another company in new deli to pollute.
It might help you understand if you were to think of free trade as fair trade, as something fair and equitable, as a two-way street, as a fair exchange and free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor, BOTH!!! ways. I am not against fair free trade.
Do we?
In todays “global economy”, how do you know that silly t-shirt you just bought at Kmart was not made by child labor?
that the facory that produced it did not pollute?
that the factory did not violate ““whatever”” zoning restriction that happens to “floats your boat”?
How do you know the plant that made that t-shirt obeys EVERY!!! United States OSHA and safety law?
How effective is our “anti-trust” law in keeping competition free, fari, and open between the people of Red china and the people of Vermont?
When all high tech service jobs, and all american manufacturing is outsourced to foreign lands, when all american factories have closed and moved to china(financed by the american taxpayer) , just where do all of your silly little “laws” do squat?
I doubt it. Conservative parties in aren’t very fond of people who want to abolish the laws which protect the “family values” and the like. And concerning France, the RPR has traditionnally been quite pro-governmental interventionism. They would fit better with the less important “liberal” parties (which in europe means right-wing, not left wing) which are more interested in a liberal economy, and don’t feel very concerned with social conservatism.
But even there, they wouldn’t be taken seriously. I can speak only about france, but, I never met a libertarian here…And believe me, I met my share of people from fringe political parties. I didn’t even know that such a thing existed until some years ago when I read an article which refered to “right-wing anarchists” in the US. And I only discovered the word “libertarian” on this board. IOW, it’s essentially unheard of here.
People who have an issue with governements regulating people’s lives here are classical anarchists, with strong socialist historical roots, and economical freedom really isn’t their main goal. They wouldn’t consider “property” has a basic right in any way, but much more likely as a concept and tool used by some people to coerce other people. They would certainly agree with the libertarians on some issues, and then would faint when discovering the emphasis libertarians put on private property.
As for the reasons, I would suspect, like a previous poster, that libertarianism is closely tied to the american traditional distrust of the government.
But does the “(wo)man in the street” have any respect for the Libertarian Party? I would say, no. I think the majority dismiss out of hand as pointless timewasters all minor parties. And does the “(wo)man in the street” have any respect for the libertarian veiwpoint? Again, I would say, no. I don’t think many have any real understanding of libertarian ideas.
To the extent that they do understand libertarian ideas, most seem to disagree with them. They think it’s utterly nutty to suggest doing away with zoning laws, minimum wage laws, government licsencing of assorted jobs and professions, etc. They think it’s totally idiotic to suggest decriminalizing marijuana, hard drugs, gambling, prostitution. And guns!? Don’t get them started on guns!
Nate, the Libs would say that the poor, the marginalized, the environment, education, etc., would do better under Libertarianism.
On social issues, the Libs and the Repubs are adamantly opposed. The Repubs tend to favor attempts to legislate morality; something Libs are very much against.
[hijack] For the comic book fans: Peter Bagge is the highest-profile Libertarian among cartoonists, and Steve Ditko (co-creator of Spider-Man) is the highest-profile Objectivist. [/hijack]
Frankly, I can see how Libertarians might have trouble finding enthusiastic followers in countries where the schools and fire departments do not, in fact, receive government funding. People who chafe at too much government in their faces might want to vacation in some former Soviet bloc nation like Armenia or Albania to see where this path actually leads.
I’ve seen an ad in the local college libertarian paper, Beltway Free Marketeer, hawking Libertarian t-shirts. “Libertarians: Gun-Toting Economists on Drugs.”
I wonder if the sheer size of the US is also a contributing factor to the (relative) popularity of Libertarianism. As the third-most populous country in the world (and among developed nations the first by a LONG way) it must be very easy to feel completely disconnected from the political process, and that your vote doesn’t count. As long as you see your country’s government as being “them” rather than representative of “us” it’s obvious that you’d want “them” to have as little control over your life as possible.
The more I think about this, the more I think it is mainly the “Ayn Rand Factor”. I think the US would be as underrepresented as the rest of the world in Libertarian politics if it hadn’t been for her novels and other books.
The Progressive Democrats in Ireland wouldn’t be a million miles from the Libertarian Party, although they aren’t quite as extreme. They’re conservative economically, liberal socially (although I think they’re a bit dubious on the latter half of that equation). And they’re also one of the coalition partners in the current Government, so they’re a lot less insignificant here than the Libs are in America.
I disagree.
Ayn Rands novels and books, are available to the entire world, there is no particular reason why her thoughts would affect the rate of libertarianism more in the US than in the USSR(where she was from) or other countries.
The Libertarian party did not come into being because of AynRand, but because by the election of 1968, “there was not a dimes worth of difference between the republicans and the democrats”(George Wallace)
It became clear by the late 1960’s that both the democrats and the republicans were pushing gun control, war in foreign lands, higher taxes and spending, more restrictions on personal freedom, less states rights, less individual rights, etc. It became clear that the principles of Washington and Jefferson were at odds with the democrats and republicans.
Thus, a group of people got together and started the Libertarian party(very early 1970’s as I recall).
Except in a few local elections, the Libertarians only get about 1% of the vote.
However, what libertarians believe in , is more popular than what the reported votes suggest.
For example, Ron Paul, only received 1% of the vote when he ran for president as a “Libertarian”.
When he ran, again, this time as a “Republican”, even though he was running against other republicans and against the republican party, he easily won a majority of the votes, and has been re-elected every election since then, as a US (repbulican)congressman from Texas.
Ron has not changed any of his positions, beliefs, or what he stands for, since he ran under the Libertarian banner. Ron still wants an end to the income tax, he wants an end to gun control, he wants us out of the UN, etc.
Ron is not a republican if you look at what he believes and what he says, he is still a libertarian, and all the people of Texas know what Paul believes in, but he can only get elected if his name has a republican label.
Maybe these books are “available” in some way, but are they actually read outside the US? I must admit that I don’t read much in the way of novels, and don’t know much about litterature. But I never heard her name before beginning to visit american message boards. If she’s a writer only known in the US (I don’t know if it’s true or not), then the poster you were responding to could be right, and part of the appeal of libertarianism in the US could indeed be related to her novels (not that I have any opinion either way).
Next time I’ll pay a visit to the bookstore, I’ll ask them whether there are available translations of Ayn Rand’s books (just out of curiosity).