Libertarianism and Objectivism
May 1, 2008 by Abhishek
Libertarianism and objectivism have always shared a somewhat uneasy relationship. Most libertarians, while acknowledging the importance and influence of Ayn Rand’s ideas, nonetheless feel a certain degree of discomfort with the more simplistic or dogmatic aspects of her message. In the words of Nick Gillespie, former editor of Reason Magazine, Rand is “one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement” and she ”remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture” in general and in libertarianism in particular. However he confessed that he is sometimes embarrassed by his magazine’s association with her ideas [1] .
On the other hand, Ayn Rand never cared to hide her disdain for libertarians, claiming that they used her ideas “with the teeth pulled out of them.” However, some of her ire may have been due to a misunderstanding of the term — according to Nathaniel Branden, Rand’s one time lover, she did not realize that libertarians were mostly advocates not of anarchism but of constitutionally limited government [2] . Many modern objectivists, meanwhile, continue to share Rand’s sentiments. In the words of popular blogger Gus Van Horn:
(The Libertarian) party is hardly a friend of liberty, given that their lack of a coherent philosophical approach makes them unable even to define the term… In essence, the Libertarians pretend that a concept as sophisticated and controversial as freedom is whatever anyone, no matter how mindless, wants it to be.
Elsewhere though, Van Horn describes himself as a (small-l) libertarian.
Van Horn’s dilemma is, I suspect, shared by most present-day objectivists. The heart of the matter is that libertarianism is a broad political ideology while objectivism is a closed philosophy. Objectivists value the basic tenet of individual freedom, but view it as a consequence of (in their view) more fundamental axioms. Thus, objectivism is a special kind of libertarianism, one that attempts to fit various libertarian principles as corollaries of a particular systematic philosophy.
In his very readable autobiographical essay, libertarian economist Bryan Caplan describes his shift away from objectivism.
I rejected Christianity because I determined that it was, to be blunt, idiotic. I rejected Objectivism and Austrianism, in contrast, as mixtures of deep truths and unfortunate mistakes.
…
During my undergraduate years, I spent far more time reading and thinking than writing. But two essays that appeared while I was in graduate school - “Why I Am Not an Objectivist” (by Michael Huemer), and “Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist” (by myself) - ultimately articulated the main objections I formed as an undergraduate.
Michael Huemer was a fellow Berkeley student, and the most powerful influence on my mature philosophical outlook; he is now a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado. You might say that Huemer provided a modern restatement of the Scottish philosophy of common sense, best represented by Thomas Reid, but this seriously understates the originality of Huemer’s contribution. In any case, like Reid, Huemer maintains that philosophers’ great error is to set up inherently unfulfillable standards for knowledge, and then turn to skepticism once they realize that their beliefs fall short of these standards. As Reid puts it:
[W]hen we attempt to prove, by direct argument, what is really self-evident, the reasoning will always be inconclusive; for it will either take for granted the thing to be proved, or something not more evident; and so, instead of giving strength to the conclusion, will rather tempt those to doubt of it who never did so before. (1872, p.637)
I do not think that Rand would have objected to Reid’s basic point. She maintained that there were three self-validating axioms - “Existence exists,” “Consciousness is conscious,” “A is A.” But for Reid and Huemer, the set of knowledge-not-in-need-of-proof is more expansive. In particular, it includes some moral truths. It is obvious, for example, that murder is wrong. If someone denied that it was obvious, what argument could convince him?
Rand of course thought she had an argument for the wrongness of murder (see “The Objectivist Ethics” in Rand (1964)). The more I reflected, though, the more I realized that her “man qua man” standard was question-begging. If Rand did not approve of an action that seemed plainly conducive to one’s self-interest, she declared it contrary to the life of “man qua man.” The Reid-Huemer route was to openly recognize the wrongness of murder as an independent moral fact. In the admittedly rare circumstances where murder serves one’s self-interest, it remains wrong.
Thus, the very systematic philosophy (’leading’ to freedom) that objectivists view as their strength, Caplan sees as unnecessary and dogmatic.
My position on the matter is similar to Caplan’s. If one has to deal with purely moral questions, individual freedom needs no justification more basic than itself. However, there is no uniform route, moral or otherwise, to a political ideology. Libertarianism distills the essence of Ayn Rand’s philosophy — yet, by not imposing any further axioms, it retains a breadth that objectivism lacks. Thus, libertarianism comes in many different flavors — rights libertarianism, green libertarianism, consequentalism, anarcho-capitalism — each with its own philosophical underpinnings but united by the common thread of liberty. Van Horn and others may regard this as a weakness; however, I see it as a strength.
“Thus, objectivism is a special kind of libertarianism, one that attempts to fit various libertarian principles as corollaries of a particular systematic philosophy.”
Good ‘Heavens’! That is the whole problem with Libertarians. Anyone –say a communist– who argues that his views, when implemented, will make men free, is welcomed to the Libertarian fold. The result is a confusion of ideas as to what freedom truly is among Libertarians! What kind of political system would result from such a group? Some will argue for one set of laws that take away some parts of genuine freedoms, and others will object and propose a different set taking away other freedoms. This is embarrassingly evident in Reason magazine and many other Libertarian publications. You may see it as a strength, but this, by Caplan may give you pause to reconsider:
“…for Reid and Huemer, the set of knowledge-not-in-need-of-proof is more expansive. In particular, it includes some moral truths. It is obvious, for example, that murder is wrong. If someone denied that it was obvious, what argument could convince him?”
One of the ten commandments announces, as an edict not-in-need-of-proof that one not commit murder. History shows just how well that edict worked: with full knowledge of the edict, high ranking, and otherwise sane Christians committed all sorts of murders. Why? Because they had their own rationalizations about the murder of those who did not conform to their view of religion and morality… thinking such murders were outside the meaning of the edict (as they interpreted it).
Clearly, that commandment (a conclusion) was not knowledge-not-in-need-of-proof! The right conclusion for the wrong reasons is the wrong conclusion. Reid and Huemer place morality in the same fuzzy realm of the Christian mystics that Caplan views as “idiotic”. They commit precisely the same kind of idiocy!
Morality requires a rational epistemology if its principles are to consist of “right conclusions”. Politics depends upon moral principles, but with Libertarians drawing their moral views from the smoky realm of the mystics, or other equally subjective sources, disagreement and inconsistency can be the only result. Translated into politics, conflict will be the only result.
Caplan has failed to grasp the meaning and usage of “man qua man“. To put it simply, it emphasizes that one has to precisely observe and recognize what is natural to Men as evidence for the qualities and standards being discussed. It is the ‘outside’ perspective that identifies all things human, particularly man’s type of consciousness. It emphasizes that man exists -in reality- and, as the object of interest, has objective attributes. This is not question begging, it is a specific use of ostensive identification.
Ultimately, therefore, the first quotation above demonstrates the unprincipled mess of conflicting ideas that ultimately makes Libertarianism irrational.
“Anyone –say a communist– who argues that his views, when implemented, will make men free, is welcomed to the Libertarian fold. The result is a confusion of ideas as to what freedom truly is among Libertarians! “
I disagree. Libertarians have a fair consensus about the core individual freedoms that are important. Thus, I cannot make any sense of your claim that a communist may be accepted into the libertarian fold. For instance, no libertarian advocates restrictions on free speech, or criminalization of victimless crimes, or nationalisation on financial institutions or significant regulation of businesses. Where libertarians disagree is usually on topics like international policy, or environment issues or war.
“Politics depends upon moral principles, but with Libertarians drawing their moral views from the smoky realm of the mystics, or other equally subjective sources, disagreement and inconsistency can be the only result. “
You are adopting the same dogmatic position as objectivists often do. Libertarians don’t draw their “moral views from the smoky realm of the mystics” but usually have a consistent philosophical approach to it. However they don’t mandate a single rigid approach on all issues or demand that the underlying philosophy be a rigid uniform system. Instead it recognizes that people are different and what is ultimately important — for both moral reasons and because it is the only one that really works in practice — is individual liberty. It also recognizes that it is possible to come to this correct conclusion in a rational manner by different moral routes. I think that demonstrates a greater understanding of the human condition than you are willing to grant. Rigid epistemology degenerates eventually to an uncompromising dogmatism that is unable to deal with the complexities of the real world or consider the subtle influences that shape cultures and people. For instance, Caplan and I surely agree on the things that really matter — the core ideals — but have undoubted diferences on the final details, on extraneous issues and also on the exact moral beliefs we hold beyond liberty. Libertarianism is not arbitrary but merely flexible about such matters.
To sum up, I think that libertarianism sees what is more important and what is less, tries to accomodate differences between people, realizes that to lose oneself in details or uncompromising dogmatism is counter-productive, and therefore only distills the essence of Rand’s philosophy. That is what, IMHO, makes it more relevant.
Added later: I think the following passage by Nathaniel Branden, objectivist and one time lover of Ayn Rand, is important and relevant to this issue:
“I disagree. Libertarians have a fair consensus about the core individual freedoms that are important.”
Actually, this is simply not true. Abhishek, you need to educate yourself on the wide varieties of libertarianism–and you can find them all only a few clicks away on Wikipedia. There is most certainly a Marxist Libertarian strain. There are leftist libertarians (Noam Chomsky is but one prime example).
Libertarianism is a political philosophy–although, I even hesistate to call it a philosophy because it has no core identity that can be identified as a body of philosophy. Libertarianism provides no moral prescriptions for an individual, its worth (if any) appears only at the level of social and political interaction, not at the personal and individual level. There is no such thing as cultivating personal libertarian values.
Ergo- That is a valid point. I am indeed aware of the existence of left-libertarianism (the Noam Chomsky variety, not the Murray Rothbard variety; isnt it funny how labels work?) and I wasn’t including that in my definition of libertarianism. The terms left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism are almost oxymorons, and differ in one crucial aspect from the kind of libertarianism I was talking about, namely in property rights. Perhaps, I should have made this point clear in my original post; but then no one considers them libertarians really.
“There is no such thing as cultivating personal libertarian values.”
Beyond the core non-aggression principle, you mean? Which by extension, includes championing freedom of speech and freedom of association and freedom to do what you want with your property and would also include a recognition that the state (and other individuals) have no business interfering in others’ personal affairs (like what happens in the bedroom). These are values quite relevant to the present world. And these indeed play a part in your personal dealings.
Beyond such matters, there are values and philosophies that most libertarians hold, and some of them are fairly sophisticated. One of them happens to be objectivism. No single one of them however is the definitive libertarian philosophy, and if because of that you decline to call libertarianism as a whole a philosophy, or wish to call it a political ideology or system or whatever, that’s perfectly fine.
Hee. Doesn’t the above exchange of comments illustrate fairly well Abishek’s opening sentence: “Libertarianism and objectivism have always shared a somewhat uneasy relationship.” ?
Now, I am not really a libertarian and am certainly no objectivist. However it seems to me that Abishek isn’t really rejecting the necessity of philosophy but simply saying there are more important things for practical and political purposes. People need to come together despite their differences.
I don’t consider myself a libertarian or an Objectivism. Anyway, I really like this blog post. It offers some very nice commentary on the relationship between libertarianism and Objectivism.
Most of all I think it is important to remember that libertarianism is a political platform that aims to make policy based on a few certain basic values, whereas Objectivism is a complete philosophy that entails specific philosophical views that can be held or opposed by both libertarians and non-libertarians. For example, I don’t think epistemological absolutism has much to do with political support or opposition to libertarianism.
I think I may be reiterating what some of the other people have already said here. :)
Scott- Thanks for your kind comments. Also, I think your observation on epistemological absolutism is very accurate.