What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Crezth]

Nope, a caste system is quite a different thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system

My bold.

Any system with zero social mobility is, effectively, a caste system. Your "class" - as it were - has nothing to do with that.

I don't disagree - but your assumption that government is the only and/or best provider of education seems to be so deep that you can't even think of a World where people educate themselves.

Well, people tried the self-education and home-schooling and learning-on-the-job for many thousands of years. Public schooling is a standardization of the process of education, and is meant to give a wider variety of people access to the type of education that really matters. I mean, almost nobody teaches themselves math and science, to say nothing of the more esoteric elements in both subjects and many others. When I got to the part where D'anconia taught himself calculus despite having no mathematical background, I had to close the book in anger: I didn't come back to it for a month.

Yes, some people are equipped of the knowledge to render unto themselves that knowledge, but they are so few and far in between that having the system rely upon them is counterproductive when we could be churning out engineers, lawyers, and doctors from all levels of society, not just the richest and/or smartest.

Oh, also, public education is what brought the literacy rate in the United States to the highest it has been anywhere in the entire history of the world before that.

It is not a foregone conclusion that government education will increase social mobility - governments can educate in order to indoctrinate, if they so desire. So your faith in government as the source of all educational wisdom is seriously misplaced.

What I'm saying is there is no reliable alternative. You need a standardized education to make sure the knowledge people are getting is established as scientific, and it makes the most sense that government take care of that because it has no ulterior motives (well... okay, that's not entirely true, but a profit motive is less reliable than something like "indoctrination," which is in large parts and unfounded worry in a society with as many watchdogs as the USA).

You're assuming that something similar to the European welfare state gives maximum social mobility, while a free society would have zero social mobility. That is an unwarranted exaggeration.

I never said anything about European welfare states. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, what I'm trying to argue is that a basic level of education for everyone is key to providing social mobility in a post-industrial society, and that a public education system is more reliable in that respect than private education (which would be profit-motivated) or homeschooling (which is usually ineffective).

Picking a random example of one person [especially of a media-savvy businessman like Donald Trump] doesn't prove your point.

Trump is not a great man, though, except in that he has money. He's a massive success, guaranteed to never starve, simply because his dad had cash. But he's not an entrepreneur, an inventor, an engineer, a scientist, an architect: Ayn Rand would consider him an unequivocal failure if it weren't for the fact that he's the 1%.

What I'm saying is if Trump didn't start from money, there's no way he'd have it now. Hardly a self-made man or a great mind.

Yet they still exist, and created profound changes in the nature of our society. You are arguing in absolutes, whereas the reality is much more complex.

Actually, you're arguing in absolutes, here. I'm saying you cannot rely on these people, and I'm also saying that you shouldn't have to. We can do better.

It's just a piece of fiction - Galt did his best to stop socialism, but he can't be blamed for the actions that socialism performed. Perhaps some blame can be put on his shoulders for not finding a way to stop the collectivists, but that hardly makes him genocidal [unless you are determined to keep trying to reverse the cause-and-effect, in which case believe what you wish ].

It was Galt's actions, not the socialists', that led to that ending.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any system with zero social mobility is, effectively, a caste system.

Not really. "Caste" has a relatively specific meaning in sociological, anthropology and social history, implying a certain legal-cultural division of society. "Zero social mobility", however that would manifest, would not constitute this because there would still be a spectrum of wealth and social status. Your usage of "caste" is rhetorical, a synonym for "class" with negative (or perhaps more overtly negative?) connotations, rather than an accurate usage of the term.

 

[Crezth]

Not really. "Caste" has a relatively specific meaning in sociological, anthropology and social history, implying a certain legal-cultural division of society. "Zero social mobility", however that would manifest, would not constitute this because there would still be a spectrum of wealth and social status. Your usage of "caste" is rhetorical, a synonym for "class" with negative (or perhaps more overtly negative?) connotations, rather than an accurate usage of the term.

I meant that such a system has the effect of being a caste system, in that you are born into your station of life with little to no prospects of advancement.

I guess the nomenclature doesn't really align, so I should emphasize that what I mean is any system with zero social mobility isn't really conducive to liberty nor the concept of bootstraps.

 

[Cutlass]

The courts will resolve that issue because it is false advertising.

You are assuming the courts would. An objective view of the court system assures you that it won't. Courts apply laws. If you don't make laws, the courts are powerless. Common law, you may respond. Problem with common law is that it is not consistent and doesn't necesarrily have much to do with justice. Further, civil suits in courts inherently favor the rich over the poor. So the merits of the case generally don't even matter if there is a big disparity in the wealth of the participants.

What kind of definition of authoritarianism is that? By that definition, isn't almost everyone an authoritarian - please tell me who, under that definition, would not be classed as an "authoritarian"?

You have a government with a mandate to protect a minority of the population while not protecting the majority of the population. Under those circumstances, the majority can only do exactly what they are told to do, or be punished. That's authoritarian.

Now you appear to be saying private property is immoral, based purely on some unknown speculation you are making about what our ancestors might have done 75,000 years ago. This is part of anarcho-communist myth-making - that sometime in the past, there was a virgin Earth, and that this free Earth was enclosed and denied to others by the creators of private property. Anarcho-communists go on to say that this "original sin" invalidates all the private property in the Earth today. It completely ignores the fact that it is utter speculation, that social development was immensely complex and occured in multiple locations, and that it hardly matters anyway what our ancestors did 75,000 years ago, as what they did or did not do has no relevance on the current wisdom of private property ownership and legal titles for organising production.

You've missed the point. All property cannot be separated from force to enforce the claims. Trying to pretty it up doesn't change the basic facts.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The thread moved pretty quickly. I haven't read everything, so feel free to point me to other posts that have covered what I'm talking or asking about.

No worries, post as you have time if you're busy IRL.

Theres seems to a big jump between your epistemology and your ethical framework, even if we accept the former (which seems a little suspect, but I'm not prepared to get into a complex debate about that now). I'm not sure "the mind's relation to reality" can, given the premises outlined in your metaphysics and epistemology, simply be identified as "one of it own survival in the World".

Let's say that there is indeed such a thing as 'objective reality' that consists of an indisputably existent world and that is invariably affirmed through its unfailing perception by the mind, why should the mind be therefore concerned about its own survival or existence? What's the connection?

Your personal lack of certainty is not an argument against it - I consider the statement "the mind's relation to reality is one of its own survival in the World" to be an accurate description. I'm always open to other philosophical perspectives, so if you wish to advance an actual argument as to why you think this claim should be treated as suspect...?

So you are saying that Objectivism is Aristotelian except that its telos is simply the survival of the individual?

No, I mean in the sense that the goal is eudaimonia - the pursuit of happiness, with the realisation that rationality is not strictly a choice but a necessity imposed by reality in order to make eudaimonia possible.

If that is the case, Aristotelians could accuse Objectivists of confusing means and ends. Survival is essential, yes, but once the individual is able to survive, there would seem to be no reason to continue to pursue his rational self interest if survival is the aim of such a pursuit.

But again, this can't be a real critique, because in order to make it you have first assumed that the conditions of survival have been met. You therefore have to assume the fundamental correctness of the proposition [the mind needs to survive], in order to advance a further argument about prosperity [either to refine the sophistication of the ethics, or against it as the case may be].

Also, I agree with you that survival is not the end of the process - as I pointed out, prosperity [I didn't define it, but take it in the broadest sense of material, intellectual, artistic etc happiness] follows on from survival. But the first and fundamental choice is survival or non-existence, so the mind can't exist as a mind without survival - it's only alternative to survival is non-existence, and thus its self-termination as mind.

I know you also mentioned prosperity, but so far its place has not been explained. You suggested that the mind needs and wants to able to survive, and that to ensure its survival it must embrace an ethic of individualism. How does prosperity fit into the picture?

Survival alone is not enough - one can survive as a slave or prisoner, for example. Each person decides what level of survival they are content with, but it's true that living humans always pursue additional values above survival - such things as love, spiritual fulfilment and so on.

Yes, you're right; and they do. Aristotle often places a virtue on matters of the self that go beyond simple self-interest and draws a clear line between altruism (virtuous) and selfishness (non-virtuous). He says that being altruistic is not a trait one has for the gratification of the self, but the gratification of the spirit. It rewards someone in a way that is deeper and more satisfying than merely being selfish does.

Being altruistic rewards someone? Then is it not a form of selfishness?

This kind of "altruism" is acceptable to Objectivists [see my comments on charity, above]. We simply redefine it as selfishness.

I've seen an Objectivist argue that is still compatible with Objectivism because the choice to be selfless, or to do something for someone else, is made on the part of the self and is a rational choice made with respect to one's own rational self-interest. It's not an argument that holds water, however, because Aristotle doesn't leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out what the moral action is: he outright tells you. And he never admits that altruistic deeds are ultimately selfish, just that they benefit the self through their own virtuousness.

Again, you repeat the fact that this kind of altruism is clearly defined as self-interested in some way. You cannot ignore the fact that it is therefore a form of selfishness, however abstract.

There are great long term benefits when it comes to national parks. The tourism from the Grand Canyon is far better economically and environmentally than ruining it just to get some Uranium. The Uranium mine would be a one time, short-term boost to the economy. So long as we preserve it, the Grand Canyon will continue providing a place for people to go to see a natural wonder and keep tourist dollars coming in.

I don't know the statistics to be able to make a comparitive evaluation, but I trust your word on it

There actually are some entry fees to some national parks. It goes to pay for park employees and maintenance. Yes, I would gladly pay to see them.

Freedom is great. I support being able to go hike through the National Parks anytime you like. It would be a travesty if they were sold to commercial interests, then closed to the public so that they can be exploited for temporary short-term gains.

I can see that we clearly wouldn't win many votes on this issue I do think that these parks are subsidised in many ways to be below their true economic costs. Whether that is a price worth paying in order to preserve nature is an interesting argument.

For the fairly nominal fee of $300 I purchase the courts and police to protect my government privilege of protection from limited liability, something worth a bit north of $300. Now, I can see why it is beneficial (especially if you think government should have such a role in the marketplace), but it certainly isn't libertarian. If you want protection from individual liability, from a libertarian perspective, you should negotiate for it in the free market, not purchase government enforcement of it for a nominal fee.

For the fairly nominal fee of $5 I can insure a mobile phone that is worth $250.

You are confusing costs - if many businesses pay the fee but only some use the service, then the remaining "cash pot" can be used to pay out costs of claimants just like an insurance service.

You are also confusing values - just because I gain more than $300 of value from my product, doesn't mean that I have inflicted more than $300 of loss on the rest of society. This limited liability may be worth more value to the company purchasing it than $300, but so what? That value is value-added by an intelligent design principles, not cost-imposed on society.

 

[Berzerker]

The point is that any land worth living on was worth wandering across hunting and gathering or grazing herds on before someone claimed it and denied the traditional users the right. So you don't have property before you have aggression to seize it.

Government is just the formalizing of that.

Thats what the Hopi did before growing crops, if you're accusing them of aggression identify their victims. And then please explain at what point in time everyone shared the land. I'd also like to know if you think its moral for nomads to raid the crops of farmers. According to your argument the nomads are the victims of aggression because those dang farmers settled down in their path.

It's not a free market if you are enforcing it with government privileges.

I'll ask again, why are you introducing foreclosures into the debate?

If my arguments sound absurd and you must retreat to government force to make it les absurd, then perhaps the point I a making has something to do with that. It's funny how libertarians are making statist arguments to deal with me on this.

Do you even remember what we're talking about? You said ownership has its origins with government and I said it predates government. You "retreated" from that and started talking about foreclosures. And when have libertarians said people should be able to live in your house without paying you? Thats kinda the point of having a government, protect life liberty and property. You've dug so deep you gotta accuse libertarians of hypocrisy based on a strawman? Truly impressive!

There is no single transhistorical form of either property or government, so this claim is essentially meaningless for the purposes of this discussion.

It was in response to someone claiming ownership originated with government, and I supported my claim. And what discussion are you talking about? Me, Cut & JR are discussing the origins of property and how it relates to libertarianism.

 

[Old Hippy]

There are different kinds of private charity, but I don't think the issue is whether charity supports Objectivism, but whether pricate charity is an effective mechanism for looking after people without government support. Nearly all charities acquire private funds where possible - such as Red Cross, Medicine Sans Frontiers, Bill Gates Foundation to name a few. They may not support the entirety of Objectivism, but they certainly support private solutions to social problems, else they wouldn't form themselves as charities.

But the issue is Ayn Rand's views on neolibertarianism and Objectivism as a different way to govern ourself as opposed to the existing way, the Red Cross thrives under the existing forms of Government( recieving funding, as well as lobbying for its veiws to be adopted) same with Medicine Sans Frontiers, note both mainly opperate outside their own borders in areas that don't have the protections of current forms of government/economic advantage/Freedoms as such they are an extention of current forms of government/society

the Bill Gates Foundation is interesting, at first glance it would seem that it is a good example of what would happen... till one realizes his partner in charity and wealth distribution is Warren Buffet and he very publicly supports Higher taxes on the rich

so it still seems that the Objestionists who propose a new form of governing ourself, fall short on answering questions of how they would do it, saying "well you do it under the current form of government " dosn't really cut it for a view that holds that Society dose not really exist... BUT trust us we have your best interests at heart, just give us the freedom to prove it, we are going to leave nearly all the existing structures of law and order in place, we just need to free up Bussiness/ elites to reach their full potential,
its not for the present system to answer, we tinker and change it all the time ... its for the proposed new system to explain in detail How things would be done, so many things have just not been thought through with any detail tho

 

[JollyRoger]

For the fairly nominal fee of $5 I can insure a mobile phone that is worth $250.

You are confusing costs - if many businesses pay the fee but only some use the service, then the remaining "cash pot" can be used to pay out costs of claimants just like an insurance service.

You are also confusing values - just because I gain more than $300 of value from my product, doesn't mean that I have inflicted more than $300 of loss on the rest of society. This limited liability may be worth more value to the company purchasing it than $300, but so what? That value is value-added by an intelligent design principles, not cost-imposed on society.

Your insurance is through a private entity, not with the government (unlike the corporate limited liabiulity privilege). And yes, you are potentially inflicting more than $300 worth of damage on your counter-parties. Anyone that wants to hold you individually liable has to contract specifically for it which inceases their transaction costs. If your comapny goes belly up, creditors are left holding the bag while you as an individual are left holding all the assets you transferred from the corporation to yourself. Even worse if you are going belly up because of a large damage award in a tort lawsuit where some innocent party does not get just compensation because of your $300 privilege to transfer assets beyond the reach of such a judgment creditor. Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the cheap government provided limited liability shield - I'm just saying it is not libertarian at all.

 

[Cutlass]

Thats what the Hopi did before growing crops, if you're accusing them of aggression identify their victims. And then please explain at what point in time everyone shared the land. I'd also like to know if you think its moral for nomads to raid the crops of farmers. According to your argument the nomads are the victims of aggression because those dang farmers settled down in their path.

Take the Americas for example. Depending on which dates you accept for the first humans, people wandered over essentially all of the Americas for 6 or 8 thousand years before anyone discovered agriculture. And at least 10 thousand years before anyone made permanent settlements.

So no one knows from the archeological record what hunter-gatherers were where and when. But we do know that they were essentially everywhere at some times.

And then someone closed off part of their range and called it "property".

 

[JollyRoger]

I'll ask again, why are you introducing foreclosures into the debate?

Because it is a privilege backed by government force, something most libertarians are appalled by in other contexts.

 

[bernie14]

And as an observation that's fine, albeit so incomplete as a discussion of dictatorship and so over-generalised as a discussion of the Left as to be complete worthless. But what predictive powers does that give you, exactly? What are you claiming to have discovered that would preclude an unilateral seizure of power by Objectivists?

thank you, reason after all, is based on observation .

the only claim is simply that it has not happened to date...actually, i dont think that in "practical" terms, objectivists can claim any major victories either...however, again in practical terms, marxists can only claim failures to date....does this provide some absolute predictive power? of course not......i could not even guarantee that you would not literally fall through your chair when you attempted to sit in it, but observation would make that possibility at least, unlikely

Because it [a foreclosure] is a privilege backed by government force, something most libertarians are appalled by in other contexts.

sorry to butt in, but isn't a foreclosure the result of a broken contract?

 

[KaiserElectric]

I read Anthem once a few years back. I rather liked it, and I felt Ayn Rand had a few good points. I don't really think it makes me Libertarian, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

sorry to butt in, but isn't a foreclosure the result of a broken contract?

Nope. The government-privileged entity that wrote the contract included the right to take action backed by government force. The contract has pages and pages more on this topic than on the alternative.

 

[Crezth]

I read Anthem once a few years back. I rather liked it, and I felt Ayn Rand had a few good points. I don't really think it makes me Libertarian, though.

Anthem is her most readable work, although I'd say that one play she wrote was pretty good in general. Can't remember the title of it now, though.

 

[JonBonham]

The same laws and legal principles as exist today (will keep my company in the Objectivist society from calling my cigarettes good for you) with the exception of some or most of the excessive business regulations that exist. The body of law is enormous and regulations are just one small part of it - most of the law would be kept. You seem to be thinking of a society in which there is no law - try anarcho-capitalism or anarchism for that Objectivism has a minarchist State and rule of law.

If it turned out that people were exploiting loopholes in the law to poison food etc, then the law would be changed in some way to prevent them doing that. It is the intention of Objectivism to make society as free as possible, not to turn it into a jungle.

No, I'm not thinking of an Objectivist society where there is no law, but an Objectivist society, one based solely on the principles of Objectivism as the best philosophy to base all the laws on.

But from your answers it seems that basically the principles of Objectivism cannot and do not work as principles to guide much anything since what Objectivism would advise would need to regulated by laws and priniciples based on completely different philosophies and principles, that have no basis or does not adhere to the principles of Objectivism.

'False' Advertising, my Good for you cigarettes, allows me to follow the principles of Objectivism to the maximum, it's in my rational self-interest and maximizes profit and progress. I can even spin and show how my 'false' advertising isn't 'false' at all, no matter how some may say it's misleading. (my cigarettes are “Good for you” doesn't mean it's good for your health, but it's good for your mood, social status, image, etc.) So the tenets of Objectivism are all completely for this kind of behavior. By saying, well the courts will resolve this and make sure I don't run my business how I want that maximizes my personal self-interest and does not directly cause aggression to anyone else since I'm not forcing anyone to buy my products, this shows Objectivism fails as the best system to guide our actions.

Ayn Rand holds that Objectivism is the best philosophy for people to guide their lives by, but you fail to make that case and keep going back to saying, well, other laws and the courts and regulations imposed by these courts will... basically, keep Objectivism in check. If Objectivism needs to be kept in check, how is a good philosphy to go by?

You also keep suggesting Charity is proven by history to be, well, practiced lots and so this may continue to happen to help cover the areas that the Objectivist society may fall short on. Objectivism holds that altrusim and charity are not favorable. One of the reasons Charity has a strong background in America, even among our wealthiest like the Rockefellers, is because this nation has always been, for better or for a worse, though not on any official theocratic level, America grew up and still is a christian nation. It's population has always been heavily raised on christian values.

Now I myself am an athiest, but the charitible nature of the average american is heavily, strongly tied to the religious, christian upbringing and its moral values, which strongly stresses charity and giving to the less fortunate. This is both directly and indirectly, as even agnostic and atheist families are raised with, or around these altruistic values which christianity has always taught are a moral duty and major virtues.

Now Objectivism prescribes the opposite of what christianity prescribes, Objectivism says altruism is not a value that should be highly regarded whereas its one of the most important virtues in christianity. So, sure, in America, with most people following their christian based and influenced upbringings, these non-objectivists may continue to be charitible in an Objectivist society, but the only reason that charity would work to help cover the gaps left by the Objectivist society is because people would be following a philosphy and principles that go against and are opposite of what Objectivism is about. So Objectivism again fails as the best way to go forwards as once again it relies on other philosophies, ones it even goes against, to be feasible in practice.

And if you want to take issue with my suggestion here that America's charity is heavily influenced by its christian background, take a look at China, or India, and notice how charitable they are compared to christianity based America. So in a society truly based on Objectivism, the level of charity would be way more comparable to those nations, not how it is now in the U.S.
If Rockefeller was an Objectivist he would not have given nearly as much, or anything even, to charity, as he only did because he personally felt it was a major virtue and moral duty, as his religion dictates. So your suggestion that charity would fill the gaps in an Objectivist society does not seem to have any weight.

 

[Traitorfish]

It was in response to someone claiming ownership originated with government, and I supported my claim. And what discussion are you talking about? Me, Cut & JR are discussing the origins of property and how it relates to libertarianism.

My point was that it's not possible to abstract forms of ownership and government from their historical context, so it's not possible to meaningfully argue whether "Property" preceded "the State", as if these constituted two universal categories. JollyRoger's comment was in reference to the specific institution of private property that he have today, and to it's historical roots in and thus ties to the state, while by posing "property" as something as broad as you did strips it of context and so makes it impossible to understand.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

but the only reason that charity would work to help cover the gaps left by the Objectivist society is because people would be following a philosphy and principles that go against and are opposite of what Objectivism is about.

Christ Almighty, and I thought communists got denigrated as utopians.

 

[Angst]

Christ Almighty, and I thought communists got denigrated as utopians.

Communism sustains itself as a rational development - at least on paper.

JonBonham's point against Ayn Rand (user) actually showcases the gaping holes in the philosophy. Especially as it attempts to sugarcoat itself as a liberal philosophy. At least its followers attemp to do that.

 

[JonBonham]

Christ Almighty, and I thought communists got denigrated as utopians.

I'm not sure I understand the intent of your reply? My argument is that the Objectivist society as Ayn Rand describes is either a) just like utopians (people will be good and do good just because) or only is feasible if it's not a society based off the priniciples of Objectivism, if it actually embraced ideas that are contrary to what Objectivism prescribes. I don't anything I said suggested utopianism would actually work?

 

[Ayn Rand]

It's really not a Marxist critique- I paid no reference to class, to capital and labour, or to commodity production, or any other of the fundamental elements of the Marxist conception of society. I'm dealing solely in the realities of the organisation of contemporary capitalist production: the division of labour, the concentration of decision-making roles into a managerial minority, the necessary subsumption of the will of the employed majority to the employing minority, and so on. My point here is not to criticise capitalism, and so not to offer alternatives, but to criticise the way in which capitalism is addressed by Objectivism.

Ok, thanks for the correction. While not fully Marxist, you are still thrusting a set of interpretations of capitalist fundamentals and therefore attributing an implicit responsibility onto Objectivists to defend or explain these things.

My first response is that in order to take the measure of the things you mentioned [specifically, concentration of economic and thus social power and all that it implies] we need a standard of measurement. The standard of measurement when making choices, is to consider alternatives and compare them. So the "subsumption of the will of the employed majority to the employing minority" is good or bad relative to the alternatives on offer.

So, what are the alternatives?

What is "human progress", in the Objectivist view? As I said previously, Rand's primary concern was in enabling individuals to freely pursue rational creation, so any notion of "human progress" would have to be expressed within these terms, which is not self-evidently true of the development of capitalist production.

For Objectivist goals of material and scientific progress, capitalism is the most reliable and consistent provider that there is. Whether you consider that kind of progress to be worthwhile or not is your own choice to make - I don't expect you to agree with me on this. But I think that progress is best served by a free society where individuals compete to create the best methods and products they can, without unnecessary limits.

That's a practical impossibility, though. The realities of competition preclude the overwhelming majority of the population from ever attempting to engage in this sort of enterprise, and those such enterprises that do exist peripherally, in those areas of the market that larger business have been, for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to enter into. This "freedom" becomes for the overwhelming majority a purely abstract and therefore meaningless freedom, as much as my being told that I'm free to turn myself into a unicorn is a meaningless freedom.

If something is a practical impossibility, then why pursue it as a goal? Competition is a reality that can't be put aside. However, people are free to lower their own standard of living, to lower their income, to increase their working hours and so on, by reverting to a semi-medieval form of production if they so wish. The reason they don't is that it doesn't work at all, and it won't work if forced on an entire society any more than it will work on the individual level.

My intent isn't to suggest that Objectivists are insufficiently utopian, but to suggest that they lack rigour in the development of their political philosophy. Individualist capitalism is assumed to be preferable simply because it is individualist, but without a strong argument for this particular form of individuals proceeds from Rands underlying ethical philosophy. (The only resolution that I can see is to return to Rand's apparent scepticism as to the ability of the majority to act in a truly rational fashion anyway, thus making their freedom a disposable second to that of the rational minority.)

While you've been busy criticising the "elite" and demanding that I self-criticise and examine capitalism, you here finally mention the self-cricitism you yourself need to carry out. This criticism is to look at the nature, degree of rationality and morality of the class of people who you are presumably trying to chamion. Rand does examine this group of people in some detail - their freedom is not so much disposable as self-destructed through their own decision-making. And we cannot deal with their irrationality by feeding it or entertaining the delusional idea that enslaving ourselves to their irrational choices will somehow make a safe path to a rational and moral society.


B

ut just because Galt (and Rand) did not conceive of this as an active domination, or domination for its own sake, but that doesn't mean that his agenda is not one of domination. You can say that they were just restoring their entitled freedoms, and that may be consistent within Objectivist political thought, but that their freedom entailed the domination of other human beings is a reality that Objectivism does not appear to have ready answers for. Galt may say "give us our freedom, or we'll leave you your own devices", but the content of that message, and the content that Galt very clearly knows is in that message, is "Reshape society as we decree"- submission both in itself, and in the form of society which he demands- "or perish". Again, the only apparent resolution to this is to return to Rand's elitism, to say that the freedom of the minority is the true freedom- perhaps that the freedom of the majority consists exclusively in the freedom of this minority, as seems to be implied in Atlas Shrugged- which is to abandon anything but a rather abstract libertarianism.

Not at all, all Galt really does is to walk away. One way or the other, he really only wants to be left alone - his impertinence, to assert that he is born free and intends to stay that way. There is of course a second resolution - Objectivists leaving the wider society. Galt is capable of being free without dominating anyone - but is that true of the class of people whose side you are taking?