There has been a spate of articles and even books in the last few years denouncing libertarianism and, as often as not, taking a swing at Ayn Rand. Articles like R.J. Eskow's What America Would Look Like if Libertarians Got Their Way (Alternet Dec. 25, 2013), America is an Ayn Randian Dystopia (Salon May 5, 2015), I Gave Up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders (Edwin Lyngar July 20, 2015 - one of many articles by Lyngar attacking libertarianism and Ayn Rand), Libertarians Reality Problem by Kim Messick (Salon May 18, 2014), and even an article in Forbes, the pro-business publication - Capitalism's Fundamental Flaw (Sramana Mitra June 11, 2009). Mitra, like many libertarian critics, starts out telling how he "embraced Ayn Rand as the one who best articulated a philosophy that rang true to my naturally entrepreneurial mind" but then discovered flaws, concluding with "Rand, somewhere down the road, you lost me."
In 2012, business writer Gary Weiss published Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul. It's an entertaining read and Weiss is pretty fair-minded, even though he gets some things wrong and misses the central point of Rand's philosophy.
These critics are not wrong in pointing out some of the flaws in our current system of government. Nor are they always wrong in interpreting some of the implications of Rand's philosophy. But they miss the big picture. The reason why Rand and libertarianism appeal to so many people.
Rand and libertarianism are condemned for being selfish, for being heartless and not caring for the poor, and for sucking up to big business and promoting the corporate rape of America. While I think all these attacks are misguided, I won't go into them here. I want to get to the core of her thought.
Rand is enormously popular because hers is, at its root, an ethical philosophy. And although Rand was an atheist, as am I, I think her philosophy and the libertarian philosophy can be summed up in a short sentence that is popular on Christmas cards year after year. It is from a quote in the Bible. (Luke 2:14)
Peace on earth, good will toward men.
Rand was first and foremost an advocate of reason. She cherished the human mind and what it is capable of. This is the central tenet of her epistemology. She opposed mysticism and irrationality.
She argues that in order to live rationally, one must be free to pursue one's own interests. She argued that each person is valuable in and of herself, not as some cog in an impersonal collective. That each individual ought to be free to pursue his or her own interests as long as he doesn't infringe on the equal right of others to do the same.
Applying this to a social context, in other words, politics, she argues that individuals have a moral right to pursue their own interest. A right, she argues, "is a moral sanction of a positive - of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice".
These rights impose no obligation on one's neighbours "except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."
“The central question of politics (is) the question of obedience and coercion," noted the great liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin (Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958). "Why should I (or anyone) obey anyone else? Why should I not live as I like? Must I obey? If I disobey, may I be coerced? By whom, and to what degree, and in the name of what, and for the sake of what?"
Berlin never gave a clear answer to his own questions. But Rand was unequivocal. No one should be coerced. Ever.
She examined the different ways force can be used. There are three separate and distinct cases, she argued. Force can be initiated. Force can be used in self-defence. And force can be used in retaliation against those who have initiated its use.
Initiating force is coercion and is always wrong. The only proper, the only moral use of force is in self-defence or in retaliation against someone who has initiated it. All human interaction ought to be undertaken voluntarily by mutual consent.
A crucial corollary of freely interacting individuals is the concept of contract. If people voluntarily contract, they are making a commitment. Rand recognized breach of contract and fraud as a variant of the use of force. As she put it, "A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises."
So the essence of Rand's political philosophy and of libertarianism is the moral injunction against initiating the use of force. Her critics, bar none, fail to recognize this or to acknowledge its appeal.
Whatever their specific critiques, whether it be against selfishness, or for compassion for the poor, they ignore the crucial issue of the proper and justified use of force.
It should be noted that while Rand did argue for the right to pursue one's self-interest, she was not opposed to offering assistance to those who needed it. But she argued that this was a secondary and not a primary moral issue.
More specifically, she contrasted benevolence, which she characterized as helping others out of a spirit of good will and common humanity, with the idea of compelling people to assist others. Compelling people to help others against their will involves the use of coercion. Mutual aid should be voluntarily given.
There is no specific word for the concept of "compelling aid" so Rand characterized it as altruism. This has led to much confusion as many, if not most people, equate altruism with benevolence. To avoid this confusion, let's use the term "forced aid" instead of altruism.
Rand did not get into meta-ethics, that is, the foundation of moral theory. Ethics looks at what one ought to do. Meta-ethics looks at the pre-conditions necessary for one to act morally. If I may be so bold, I would argue that an absence of coercion and compulsion is a necessary pre-condition for moral behaviour, whatever your moral beliefs may be.
An action, to be considered a moral choice, must, in fact, be a choice, or it is devoid of moral content. For example, if you consider benevolence to be a moral virtue, a man who voluntarily helps out the poor by helping out in a soup kitchen or donating money or whatever, is behaving morally. He is making a choice to act in accord with the moral principle of benevolence. He is praiseworthy. However, if he is compelled to offer assistance, if the government, say, takes some of his money by force to assist those in need, then he is not praiseworthy. He has not acted morally. He has acted amorally at best. Rand and libertarians would say he is, in fact, a victim.
Benevolence is moral. Forced aid is not.
To reiterate, an action regarded as a moral ideal that is undertaken voluntarily by choice is moral and praiseworthy. One that is undertaken because of compulsion is not praiseworthy but amoral, that is, lacking in moral content. Voluntary choice is essential for an action to be considered moral.
This holds for whatever your view of morality may be. If you are in a religious sect that regards working on Sunday to be immoral, then refraining from working on Sunday is a praiseworthy and moral action (or non-action in this case). But if the law compels you to refrain from working on Sunday (so-called blue laws), then refraining from working on Sunday is not praiseworthy at all. You have no choice.
Voluntary uncoerced choice is essential for people to behave morally.
Now Rand was an advocate of self-reliance, rational thought and pride. She was anything but humble and certainly did not encourage humility. But there is a strong case to be made that libertarianism is a philosophy of humility as opposed to statism of any variety which is a philosophy of arrogance and self-righteousness.
Most statists of whatever stripe advocate using the coercive power of the state to compel people to do things for their own good. Take seat belt laws as an example. Those in favour of seat belt laws believe it is okay to use compulsion to get people to wear seat belts because it is for their own good.
Libertarian gadfly Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller fame says that humility is the main reason he is a libertarian. "I don't know if everyone would be better off under a libertarian government," he writes in God, No! "I don't know what would be best for anyone. I don't even know what's best for me. What makes me a libertarian is I don't think anyone else really knows what's best for anyone. Take my uncertainty about what's best for me and multiply that by every combination of the over three hundred million people in the USA, and I have no idea what the government should do."
Statists, whether liberals or conservatives, have no such qualms. They're fully confident of their superiority over the hoi polloi. "You don't think you should wear a seat belt? You ignorant dolt. By God, we'll make you wear a seat belt!" The unbridled arrogance of the statist mentality is breathtaking.
Libertarianism is built on respect for the individual's ability to make their own decisions in life, to make their own choices, even if they sometimes may make an error in judgment and make a bad choice. Statism is built on a lack of respect for individuals. It regards them as essentially stupid people who need to be coerced into doing things, sometimes for their own good.
A common professed ethical ideal of liberals and the left is that might does not make right. This is exactly the position of libertarianism. Each individual has the right to make his own decisions in life, free from coercion by others. It does not matter how many people are against him, the individual is sacred. He is not a sacrificial lamb to be led to slaughter.
But the liberal left position entails a contradiction because, in fact, it holds that the majority can strip an individual of his right to be free and make his own decisions merely because they, as the majority, think they know better.
But the rights of the individual is not something that can be taken away simply because the majority thinks it would be better for society. Might, indeed, does NOT make right. But they don't see the inconsistency. As Ayn Rand so aptly put it, "the smallest minority is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
An old libertarian friend once wrote an essay contrasting libertarianism and statism as a choice between a handshake and a fist. Libertarianism is based on good will and non-violence, on rational discourse, persuasion and peaceful trade. Libertarianism is based on the principle of the handshake.
Statism is based on using physical force or the threat of it to impose the will of the rulers on unwilling subjects who are otherwise trying to peacefully live their lives. Statism is based on the principle of the fist.
Let's get back to the statement I made earlier, that libertarianism is encapsulated in the biblical blessing "Peace on earth and good will towards men".
Peace is the opposite of war. Peace is the idea that people should live together without violence. Not necessarily without conflict, but without violence. Conflicts, as they arise, should be settled by rational discourse and negotiation in a spirit of good will. The only proper use of war is in self-defence. War must never be aggressive. It must never be initiated by peace loving people.
The libertarian moral premise that force should not be initiated is just the principle of peace brought down to a more intimate level. To the realm of individuals. How can anyone who claims to be in favour of peace, who claims to be opposed to violence, support the initiation of force against individuals? There is a gross contradiction between being an advocate of peace and at the same time supporting mini-wars against individuals.
So libertarians are for peace on earth. But we are consistent and oppose violence on all fronts including violence against individuals. And by violence, I mean the initiation of the use of force. We oppose the initiation of violence by a state against another state and by a state against its own citizens.
And libertarians respect people as individuals, acknowledging their right to make their own independent decisions in life whether it be to wear a seat belt or smoke crack cocaine. As long as they refrain from initiating force against their fellows, they should be free to do what they want. In a phrase, libertarianism is based on good will towards all men.
Statists do not respect individuals. They see them as clay to be moulded to their conception of the good. Statism is based on ill will, regarding most people as too stupid or dull to make the "right" decisions in life.
Here is a recap of the differences between libertarianism and statism.
Libertarianism: Non-violent - coercion is banned. Only self-defence and retaliation are permissible uses of force
Statism: Violent - initiation of force is permitted against individuals if judged to be for a good cause
Libertarianism: Peaceful - wars only to be waged in self-defence.
Statism: Warlike - does not rule out first strike use of force
Libertarianism: Based on humility - we do not know what's best for ourselves let alone deciding the fate of others
Statism: Based on arrogance - we know what is best for you and will use force to make you comply
Libertarianism: Built on respect for the individual's right to make their own life decisions, including mistakes
Statism: Built on disdain for individual's right to make their own decisions, judging them to be too stupid
Libertarianism: Benevolent - believes in people helping others from a sense of good will towards all men
Statism: Advocates forced aid - believes people must be compelled to do "good" acts because they are basically bad people
Libertarianism: Moral - mandates people make their own ethical choices
Statism: Amoral - strips people of the right to make ethical choices by compelling them to follow the ruling elite's code of ethics
Libertarianism: Individualist - respects and honours people as individuals
Statism: Collectivist - regards individuals as cogs in the great machinery of the state
Libertarianism: Might does NOT make right. - the rights of the individual are sacred. Men are not sacrificial animals
Statism: Might makes right - individuals must be sacrificed to the common good as determined by the elites
Libertarianism: Based on the principle of the handshake
Statism: Based on the principle of the fist
One of Ayn Rand's early followers once noted that none of her detractors has ever taken the essence of her philosophy and clearly said that they disagree. None has said that they were in favour of the initiation of the use of force, that they regarded aggression as proper. That they know better than you do what is good for you and are quite willing to use the gun to get their way. That they oppose rational discussion and persuasion to promote their pet causes and favour using the coercive power of the state instead. It's so much easier when you control the guns.
Libertarianism's detractors have attacked supposed flaws in specific policies. They have attacked Rand for her personal foibles, implying that it invalidates her philosophy even though that is a non sequitur and the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument.
None have tackled the core of libertarianism, the principle of non-violence, non-aggression and peaceful co-existence. That is the root of Ayn Rand's appeal and libertarianism's appeal. And because those are eternal truths, libertarianism's detractors are doomed to failure in the long run. Peace and non-violence will win out over violence and aggression because it is the moral position. It is the moral high ground.
If the critics of Rand and libertarianism sometimes sound a bit frenzied and hysterical, it is because they recognize this and know that, as far as morality is concerned, they are on the wrong side.
In conclusion, let me wish you peace and harmony. A world of good will towards all men. A world of non-violence. Let me wish you a libertarian world.
This article was first published on my blog, The Jolly Libertarian at http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/09/why-i-am-still-libertarian.html
