From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Objectivism

Philosophy Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics Politics Aesthetics Special topics Neo-Objectivism Libertarianism Homosexuality Related Capitalism Individual rights Rational egoism Reason Important figures Ayn Rand Nathaniel Branden Alan Greenspan Leonard Peikoff Harry Binswanger Peter Schwartz Yaron Brook David Kelley George Reisman Chris Sciabarra Tara Smith Allan Gotthelf John Ridpath Important groups Objectivist movement Ayn Rand Institute Nathaniel Branden Institute The Atlas Society

This box: view • talk • edit

Many individuals found their support of libertarianism upon ideological elements derived from the philosophy of novelist Ayn Rand, which she called Objectivism.^{[citation needed]} Some libertarians who derive their beliefs from economic reasoning acknowledge various insights of Objectivism, even when not deriving their libertarianism from Objectivism. Many influential figures in the libertarian movement, such as L. Neil Smith, acknowledge a debt to Objectivism.^{[citation needed]} In addition, the fiction of Ayn Rand is popular among even libertarians who do not consider themselves to be Objectivists.^{[citation needed]} Therefore, it is perhaps surprising to some that the compatibility of Objectivism and libertarianism is a hotly contested matter.^{[citation needed]}

Contents 1 Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Objectivism 2 Rothbard's new libertarianism, and its diversification 3 Rand's condemnation of Libertarianism 4 Rand's reasons for condemning Libertarianism 5 Objectivism: Closed Anti-libertarian system or open pro-libertarian system? 6 See also

Beginning with such novels as We the Living (1936), The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), novelist Ayn Rand communicated to her readers an original philosophy, which Rand called Objectivism. Objectivism is an integrated system, addressing issues in the five main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.

Rand defined capitalism as the separation of economics and state. Capitalism, she said, was the only social system compatible with man's nature as a rational being. By the 1950s, Rand was surrounded by a significant inner circle of intellectuals who, to one extent or another, had been attracted to Objectivism. Included in that inner circle, for a time, were economists Murray Rothbard and Alan Greenspan.

Libertarianism is a term coined in the 1800s by the anarchist Joseph Déjacque, and many anarchists continue to use the term to this day. However, the term was used throughout the the 19th century by individuals who may or may not have been anarchists.^{[citation needed]}

Rothbard's libertarianism did not adopt Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. However, Rothbard did borrow, from Rand's political ideology, what Rand called the non-aggression principle: the idea that coercive physical force is never to be initiated, and that it should only be used defensively. Rothbard, and the pro-capitalist libertarians (such as Walter Block) who followed his lead, took the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is the necessary precondition of all virtuous conduct. For this reason, unlike objectivists, libertarians refer to the non-aggression principle as the non-aggression axiom.

The libertarian movement continued to diversify. Today it includes both anarchists and minarchists (i.e., those who are not anarchistic, but who believe in a minimalistic role for government).^{[citation needed]} However, the movement continues to regard its non-aggression "axiom" as the linchpin of libertarianism.

Rand was never a member of the libertarian movement. To the contrary, Rand condemned[1] libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both liberalism and conservativism. Rand said of libertarians that "They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given." [2]

Rothbard (whose brief personal friendship with Rand ended in acrimony), in turn, wrote The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, which concluded:

The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune. [3]

Psychologist Nathaniel Branden, who for a considerable period was Ayn Rand's lover and one of her closest associates, has claimed that Rand "...did not realize that the majority of people who called themselves 'libertarians' were advocates not of anarchism but of constitutionally limited government (in essence, the Objectivist model)... In any event, today libertarianism is part of our language and is commonly understood to mean the advocacy of minimal government. Ayn Rand is commonly referred to as 'a libertarian philosopher.' Folks, we are all libertarians now. Might as well get used to it." [4]. However, Branden's assessment must be read in light of the fact that Rand had disavowed Branden in the 1960s, well before he rendered that assessment (Rand broke all association between Branden and her ideological endeavors).

Rand's followers claim her objections to libertarianism were not motivated by feelings that libertarians had plagiarized her works. To understand her objections, one must understand that Rand believed capitalism to be logically consistent only with rational self-interest: Rand regarded altruism and rule by consensus to be fundamentally in conflict with capitalism and individual freedom. Rand also argued that attempts to justify capitalism with altruist and majoritarian arguments will inevitably fail and, in failing, will make capitalism appear undefendable.

To understand Rand's condemnation of libertarianism, one must also understand that the strategy of libertarianism is to create a "big tent" movement by deliberately refraining from adoption of any particular ethical philosophy. Libertarianism instead tends to bring together people who - for whatever reasons they may have - can support the idea of limited government. As a result, libertarians differ greatly and advocate capitalism on a variety of grounds, including grounds that are altruistic, majoritarian, or even hedonistic.

Rand was concerned about the idea that a movement claiming to advocate and defend capitalism was quite prepared to use doomed arguments to do it. To Rand, those who condemn capitalism as being selfish (e.g., socialists) are not a great threat to capitalism because rational selfishness itself is ethically defensible. In contrast, she argued, those who advocate capitalism on the ground that it is not selfish - on the ground that it serves the "greater good" or is somehow altruistic or popular - defame capitalism and jeopardize its future, because such arguments are erroneous and, in many cases, intellectually dishonest. In other words, when libertarian proponents of capitalism are viewed as being in error, or as being intellectually dishonest, people are left with the impression that capitalism is not defensible. The future of capitalism is thereby jeopardized. Meanwhile libertarians follow a Kantian approach believing that free markets, peace, and limited government do not require the moral improvement of mankind to sustain them, only the right set of incentives that promotes voluntary transactions as opposed to coercive ones.

Moreover, Rand rejected libertarianism's sympathies for anarchism and its acceptance of anarchists among its membership. She rejected anarchism, saying that government must exist so as to put coercive physical force under objective control.

At the risk of oversimplifying, it can today be observed that views on libertarianism's compatibility with Objectivism differ between those who view Objectivism as a closed ideological system, and those who view it as an open one.

Some Objectivists, who argue that Objectivism is a closed philosophical system - i.e., that variations on Rand's ideology are not properly called Objectivism - follow Rand's lead and continue to reject libertarianism.^{[citation needed]} This stance is most clearly identified with Peter Schwartz, Leonard Peikoff, and the Ayn Rand Institute. One of this group's most thoroughly-explained condemnations of libertarianism was provided by Schwartz in his essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" (which appears in Rand's book The Voice of Reason).

Neo-objectivists, who have argued that Objectivism is an open system - i.e., that Rand merely provided a framework for future development and improvement - have diverged from Rand with respect to libertarianism. They have been willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who was expelled from the Ayn Rand Institute because of his views on Objectivism and because of his willingness to sanction libertarianism), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel's former wife) and several New Zealand-based libertarians. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between his philosophy and the libertarian movement. Nathaniel Branden has approved of Kelley's efforts, quoting from a Talmudic passage: "A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy."

• Neo-libertarianism