 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Objectivist movement |
|---|
.jpg) |
AlthoughAyn Rand opposed libertarianism, which she viewed as anti-capitalist, her philosophy ofObjectivism has been, and continues to be, a major influence on theright-libertarian movement, particularlylibertarianism in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1]
Some right-libertarians, includingMurray Rothbard andWalter Block, hold the view that thenon-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy, but rather is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[2] but that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggressionaxiom".
Rothbard and otheranarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather thansocial contract.[3] Thus, they consider the establishment and maintenance of thenight-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand, Rand believed that government can in principle be funded through voluntary means.[4] Voluntary financing notwithstanding, some libertarians consider that a government would by definition still violate individual rights (commit aggression) by enforcing a monopoly over a given territory.[5]
In her biographyGoddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, Jennifer Burns notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages" and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights" was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians".[6] Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism" was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.[6]
Libertarians and Objectivists have disagreed about matters of foreign policy. Following theArab–Israeli War of 1973, Rand denouncedArabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are practically nomads". She said Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent" and referred to the Israelis as "civilized men fighting savages". Later Objectivists, such asLeonard Peikoff,David Kelley, andYaron Brook, have continued to hold pro-Israel positions since Rand's death.[6][7][8]
Most scholars of the right-libertarianCato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[9] while the ObjectivistAyn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[10][11]
United StatesLibertarian Party's first candidate forPresidentJohn Hospers credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[12]David Boaz, executive vice president of theCato Institute, anAmerican libertarianthink tank, described Rand's work as "squarely within the libertarian tradition" and that some libertarians are put off by "the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following".[13]Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good".[14] One Rand biographer quotedMurray Rothbard as saying that he was "in agreement basically with all [Rand's] philosophy" and that it was Rand who had "convinced him of the theory ofnatural rights".[15] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing inThe Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult:
The major lesson of the history of the [Objectivist] 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.[16]
Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with, and identify with, the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified withDavid Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians),Chris Sciabarra,Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's former wife) and others. Kelley'sAtlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between "open Objectivists" and the libertarian movement.[17]
Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[18] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. In contrast, libertarianism is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions inmetaphysics,epistemology andethics whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[19]
Of libertarians, Rand said:
They're not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers. [...] Most of them are my enemies. [...] I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.[18]
In a 1981 interview, Rand described libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose".[18]
Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party of the United States in 1976, Rand said:
The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office.[20]
Ayn Rand Institute board memberJohn Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012,[21] contributed "The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis" toCato's Letter[22] and spoke at Cato's Monetary Conference in November 2011.[23]
On June 25, 2012, theCato Institute announced that Allison would become its next president.[24] In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian". In communication to Cato employees, he wrote: "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists".[25]
On October 15, 2012, Brook explained the changes toThe American Conservative:
I don't think there's been a significant change in terms of our attitude towards libertarians. Two things have happened. We've grown, and we've gotten to a size where we don't just do educational programs, we do a lot more outreach and a lot more policy and working with other organizations. I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. It's become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism. As a consequence, because we're bigger and doing more things and because libertarianism has become more reasonable, we are doing more work with them than we have in the past. But I don't think ideologically anything of substance has changed at the Institute.[26]
