In an interview with Ralph Benko at Forbes, incoming Cato president John Allison sounds like he wants to ditch economics and turn Cato into an east coast Church of Rand. He tells Benko:
One of the things that I really want to do is make this a moral fight instead of a fight around the technical aspects of economics. The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground...First what is this about linking Hayek and Mises with conservatives? Hayek even wrote a damn paper, Why I Am Not a Conservative.
As good as Hayek and von Mises are, typically people who are interested in them already are conservative. Very few people read technical books and have their worldview changed. Rand’s work is a novel and about ethics and not economics. Rand was a defender of rational self-interest, properly understood.
As for Rand, she was an important advocate of freedom and individual responsibility, a high level cheerleader, if you will. Her philosophical leg kicks are still capable of attracting fans. But she was nowhere near the thinker that Mises, Rothbard and Hayek were.
Allison is probably correct that, for the masses, it is more enticing to read about Howard Roark blowing up apartment buildings, than it is to attempt to understand marginal utility, opportunity cost, the regression theorem, comparative advantage, methodological individualism, etc., but no movement is going to end up in the right place without it being built on the bedrock of the deep thinkers who understand the "technical aspects" of freedom.
There is nothing wrong with having institutions that are cheerleaders for freedom, provided they don't go way off the road and consider empire building a move toward freedom, but it is surprising that Cato may be heading in such a direction.
Wow, the "Mises"/"von Mises" shibboleth sure is reliable.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point in a sarcastic way.
DeleteI love coming here, LRC, etc.-but at times it smacks of "Hear/Speak/See no evil" when it comes to Mises/Rothbard, yet every other philosopher is fallible in their eyes.
With self examination comes growth, in my estimation part of that is acknowledging both the weak and strong points each personality brings to bear.
And what exactly do you see as weak in Mises and Rothbard? Please tell us, we await your wisdom.
DeleteHow about abortion and intellectual property to start?
DeleteThank you for proving my point btw.
Re: Anonymous,
Delete"Wow, the "Mises"/"von Mises" shibboleth sure is reliable."
As opposed to the Rand shibboleth?
It is YOUR opinion that Mises and Rothbard are flawed on those issues. It doesn't mean that they are, nor does it mean Robert Wenzel or Lew Rockwell think they are.
DeleteSo why should a website such as this or LRC feign to think Mises and Rothbard are flawed on those issues when they simply may not think so? Just because you have a problem with the admiration they're getting?
Why is that anybody's problem but your own?
P.S. The original anonymous did not make a "good point in a sarcastic way". He was just acting like a troll.
A good point would include a logical argument.
OP here. My point was that people who refer to Ludwig von Mises as "von Mises" have never actually read him, don't really know what they're talking about, and generally don't understand Austrian concepts; whereas people who refer to him as simply "Mises" tend to be pretty sharp and well-read.
Delete"It is YOUR opinion that Mises and Rothbard are flawed on those issues"
DeleteThat is correct, just like Rockwell and Wenzel have opinions. The question is always, "Does reason back up the opinion?"
If you don't even ask the question then just like the Objectivists have elements of cultist activity; so too would those subscribing the Rothbard/Mises line of reasoning solely.
It's a pretty big claim to suggest that Rothbard and/or Mises didn't get anything wrong. In fact, it's as big a claim as Christians make for Jesus.
Good luck in pushing that theory to all of you who would do so.
Instead, my suggestion is that a bit of honest self-examination makes for a stronger case to accept much of their writings...if you don't actively engage in(or allow)such examination then you aren't any better than the Objectivists.
For OP, thank you for clarifying your intention/meaning. I find your use of the word "shibboleth" to be the cause of my misunderstanding.
"But she was nowhere near the thinker that Mises, Rothbard and Hayek were."
ReplyDeleteI think you got that backward, pal. Mises, Rothbard and Hayek were the inferior thinkers. Rand was a philosopher who considered more than just politics and economics. If Mises, Rothbard and Hayek are all you've got, you're not going to get far implementing freedom.
Ever read "Human Action" by Mises, "For a new Liberty" by Rothbard, "The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek, pal?
DeleteHave you ever read anything about Hegel, or perhaps some of his more famous admirers? You really should, Rick-you'll learn quite a lot about Rand very quickly.
DeleteRand was a great and occasionally brilliant political writer, an OK novelist, and an atrocious philosopher. I also increasingly suspect that she was basically economically illiterate, like most Objectivists.
DeleteI actually just read Atlas and The Fountainhead. I got a hint of the militarism that Ron Paul said she has in Atlas. She hated libertarians. She believes there is such a thing as "good" government. I don't think there's anything wrong with voluntary altruism. Some people really need help and I don't think there's anything wrong with helping them. There really wasn't anything revolutionary for me since I discovered Ron Paul and the Austrians first. I appreciate how many libertarians where introduced by Ayn Rand, but I don't think she's all that.
DeleteBahaha. All Rand did was bastardise Mises' economics and Nietzsche's philosophy.
DeleteBecause Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek never strayed from economics and politics...
DeleteWhat universe are you living in?
If a novel is easier to read, why not read 'Time will run back' by Hazlitt.
ReplyDeleteIt has all the technical aspects in a story without going into the whole self-interest debate which I have found distracts from the debate rather than helps it.
I love Ayn Rand but when I am discussing or debating economics of govt actions with people I make it a point that if they say Rand, Mises and Hayek in the same sentence I always make the distinction and do not go ahead until I have convinced them to drop Rand. I have found the more liberal the audience the more important it is to make the distinction.
Wow...what a mistake. While Rand creatively showed the virtues of capitalism, there are just too many errors to be putting all your eggs in that basket.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, there are plenty of Paulians out there spreading the "technical" word.
These aren't the rah-rah yay-for-freedom types. That's too easy for the bad guys to manipulate.
Let's take the idea of central banking in the U.S. for an example. Prior to the Fed, there were earlier attempts at setting up a central bank. They were stopped and taken down by elites. The common man didn't have the knowledge (i.e., technical books) necessary to keep the monstrous idea away.
This time around may see a different result. Hopefully, by the time the Fed goes down, there will be enough people with the "technical" knowledge to keep it down and out.
If that ends up being the case, we won't be thanking Rand....but Ron.
As good as Hayek and von Mises are, typically people who are interested in them already are conservative. Very few people read technical books and have their worldview changed.
ReplyDeleteTell that to the millions of Ron Paul converts. Just compared to four or five years ago, reading the comments on newspaper sites, blogs, and forums getting into technical details and quoting Mises, hayek, rothbard, etc are nothing short of amazing. College professors have complained that they can't get kids to read stuffy old books, yet Ron Paul has kids reading Hayek, Bastiat, Mises, etc.
Ron Paul has proven this statement to be completely wrong. It may be mostly accurate for middle aged and older people, but it is definitely not true for the people in their teens, twenties, and thirties by a mile.
The moral and philosophical grounds for libertarianism are certainly important. Though Rand is great in this regard, Rothbard is better.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, when are they going to get some Rothbardians at CATO?
I think that was tried already when Rothbard helped found cato and was kicked out.
DeleteAtlas Shrugged changed my life...so I don't see a problem in making the moral case. Consider the moral case to be a bridge to the more technical stuff, because I've since read Road to Serfdom and I'm half way through Human Action. And I'm here.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I may have never found Ayn if not for Ron Paul...who I consider to be a Godsend.
Morality is a better argument for liberty than economics.
ReplyDeleteEconomics just bores people, as the geeks digest and spew statistics.
Liberty will never win unless there are more Rands in the world... who can tell a new story, reach people's sense of right vs. wrong.
I'd hardly say Rand is a "cheerleader"... she's more recognizable than Rothbard, Mises, Hayek. That says it all.
It's too true. I've actually been thinking lately about how many people in our society have the necessary intellectual fortitude, as well as motivation, to read something by Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc. Not very many. So if that's what people who believe in Liberty are relying on to get the message out there, they are going to be sorely disappointed.
DeleteI may not agree with everything Ayn Rand says, but she's done a great job at introducing concepts and making a few strong points. And she's done it in a couple novels that are brilliant reads.
She may not have had the technical acumen of other philosophers, but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ayn Rand, with two novels and a movie, is much more on the forefront of getting the word out there than the three previously mentioned peeps, combined.
I enjoy this website, but I think this concept is horrible. Why should it be one or the other? Both serve a purpose.
The economics spoken about on this site doesn't involve statistics. Austrian economics is a framework developed using apriori logic, not empiricism.
DeleteOn the contrary, I've found that every time I've explained something like the Austrian theory of the business cycle, regression theorem of money, etc, even listeners with no background at all in the topic were interested, because the logic is easy to follow and makes intuitive sense.
The moral case for liberty will never win on moral grounds alone, because the utopia the statists are designing will always be the most moral result in their eyes, the ends justifying the means.
Economics is necessary to show that the statist utopia is impossible.
Objectivist shitstorm incoming in 5...
ReplyDelete"The libertarian vision is a moral vision and we own the moral high ground...
ReplyDeleteAs good as Hayek and von Mises are, typically people who are interested in them already are conservative."
Doesn't Alisson know how Ayn Rand felt about libertarians and about conservatives?
Also, the libertarian vision is a moral vision. That is correct.
The RANDIAN vision, however, is often a warmongering vision.
Which vision does Alisson subscribe to?
"As for Rand, she was an important advocate of freedom and individual responsibility, a high level cheerleader, if you will. Her philosophical leg kicks are still capable of attracting fans. But she was nowhere near the thinker that Mises, Rothbard and Hayek were."
ReplyDeleteheh... Rand did more than all the rest put together...
Oh boy, the new CATO leadership sounds clueless. Rand of course has her fans, and before Ron Paul, she was one of the biggest popularizers of libertarian ideas (though she didn't even call it libertarianism), but her cold "rationality" or Objectivism has been a huge turn off for many people. If you push Ayn Rand, expect to lose a lot of religious and conservatively-minded people who are probably the fastest growing segment of the libertarian movement today. And, as the title of the post implies, there are the cult-like aspects to her life and philosophy that are perhaps the bathwater--but, for many, the type of bathwater that makes you want to throw out the baby too.
ReplyDelete"rationality" is a turn on for me.
DeleteWhy does everyone foster such resentment for Rand? I actually did have my worldview changed by reading Atlas. I took the book as a lesson on non-interventionism and individual accountability. What is wrong with that? I suppose she has some views not necessarily included in Atlas that some Libertarians find contemptible, but there is nothing at all wrong with Atlas Shrugged.
ReplyDeleteIf some of us have any "resentment" for Ayn Rand at all, it is for the person she was, not for writing the brilliant "Atlas Shrugged".
DeleteIt may also be worth mentioning in this context that Rand wrote an essay entitled "Why I Am Not A Libertarian".
ReplyDeleteWhere ? I've never seen it and I knew her and read everything she published. I think it was Peter Schwartz who wrote that.
DeleteIf Cato wants to launch a "moral" crusade, then they should start to think about a way to get average people to understand what inflation is, that it isn't a mysterious force of nature and that it is based upon the very immoral unseen theft of purchasing power. First things first. Instead, REASON has Steve Chapman complaining about tight money.
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/archives/2012/06/21/strangled-by-tight-money
Rand doesn't sit well with me and absolutely will not sit well with a public that does not appreciate atheists, to say the least. As Rothbard never tired of pointing out, libertarianism is a purely POLITICAL theory and does not concern itself with hectoring you on what you should be doing with your life. The essence of the Randian message was hectoring everyone to be exactly like Rand. She even put Rothbard ON TRIAL because he wouldn't renounce his Presbyterian wife.
Libertarians should be trying to explain to evangelicals that libertarianism is the best possible system in which to live if one is serious about raising one's children outside of the cesspool of modern youth culture, drugs and the public schools. Private neighborhoods and enclaves are a perfect method for doing that but, for some reason, libertarians don't like to go there. Rand would scare the hell out of evangelicals.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
I don't know what makes anyone think that a widening popular movement can be generated under Rand's banner. People are not interested in cold rationalism. Her works are important as a counter to the collectivist dogma prevalent in modern literature, but don't try stretching the rope farther than it was intended to go - it'll break.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure you can call Rand libertarian, as the anon above pointed out she didn't claim the mantle herself.
ReplyDeleteEven further, if you accept the tenet that a basic/fundamental belief all true libertarians have include the non-agression principle, Rand fails that test as well.
The definition of "libertarian" has been corrupted.
If Allison was really going to "do right" by Cato, he'd pull from EVERYONE, and establish a peer group to help sift throught the good stuff everyone has to offer and left the marginal stuff behind.
Hayek, Rand, Rothbard, etc. et al all have great philosophy, but each is wrong in certain ares. No one philosopher is going to be "Jesus" and perfect/savior of the libertarian movement. We have to take the best from each.
I agree that Rand via Atlas Shrugged(The Fountain maybe too) reaches out to the masses more effectively, but that doesn't mean you abandon the rest.
edit: "Fountainhead", "and leave the marginal"
Deletethis is what happens when you type faster than you think
If someone thinks economic freedom is immoral then it doesn't matter how well you argue it's practicality, they will not accept it. You must argue on moral grounds.
ReplyDeleteRand was a huge proponent of Mises. Please read The Virtue of Selfishness.
ReplyDeleteBoth have a place. Philosophy is the root of everything because it colors the glasses that you wear. Objectivism is the closes to transparent glasses ever found.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot accept Austrian economics or capitalism without a recognition of individualism and the rights of the individual to fully voluntary self-determination without initiation of force (selfishness as Rand put it). To do so would be a massive contradiction that cannot exist. (and the Bible contradicts this view just as much as it supports it, so you either have to be deeply conflicted or a hypocrite who selectively picks and chooses what they want to hear from the Bible... which is to say everyone I have ever met who is Christian....)
Similarly, Libertarianism is the natural political view of Objectivism. Rand's sole issue with Libertarianism is that a political view must be based on a sound philosophical position otherwise that view is doomed to failure because of the contradictions that will riddle it's existence (hence why the Union of States is collapsing now).
In short, you must understand WHY your own life is the root of all values. You must understand the measure of a position is always "Does this improve or harm my life in the long term without physically harming another or their property?" before you can build a political system on top of it. Even Rothbard repeatedly recognized this.
Ironically the only meaningful dispute (other than his wife) between Rothbard and Rand was Rothbard pointing out the contradiction in Rand's belief in a state with a monopoly on force. She couldn't see a path to competition in government and as a result doomed all governments based on her views to failure into tyranny because of that monopoly. (i.e. it is not possible to restrain absolute power simply with the force of ideas) Rand however rightfully recognized that her role was as a philosopher, not as a policy maker... it's too bad that she didn't listen to her own advise more often.
... continued
... concluded...
ReplyDeleteIn short, Libertarianism needs to recognize the root of values. Rand provides that. Behaving morally because a being that can neither be proven or dis proven says so through the mouths of men that have historically been proven to be corrupt pedophiles with world domination as their motive is not a sound basis for anything. You must know WHY you believe what you believe or any shifting wind can sway you to believing something else. Simply because someone with fiat power traded over centuries of Christian rule tells you to believe something doesn't make it right or moral.
Even educated Christians have a MASSIVE problem with the bible as it stands today because they are aware of the history of it's making and the fraud that is the text as it stands compared to what it originally said before the summits of Alexandria perverted the words and the church destroyed almost all evidence of the original texts.
But yes, I agree that for this to work, you have to convince the uneducated Christians too. For that you need a Justice Roberts to split the meaning of words so deftly as to be indistinguishable from lies....and that path results in tyranny. Hence why a just society envisioned by Rand, Rothbard and the rest is virtually impossible until religion is relegated to a story of ignorance of the past.
I think that John Allison recognizes this and sees that the path to that just society is much longer than Ron or Rand Paul becoming president and rolling back socialism/fascism to the level of the founding fathers or even further. There has to be a sea change. People must know why they believe what they believe. They must have an empirical and scientific basis for that belief and they must act morally based on that strong foundation. That process is a century or more (if even possible) of sustained education to occur. Go into any Church (and this site and Lew Rockwell mocked this very thing all weekend) and you'll recognize what I am saying if you are honest: The people believe in what they're told to believe by the guy at the bully pulpit. If he says to support our troops for god and country, then they will. If he says to overthrow the evil empire, then they will -- on the word of a man that is as likely to be a child molester as he is a man of a God and, more importantly, is simply a human being interpreting a deeply conflicted and contradictory novel based on actual events. Their view will sway depending upon how convincing the orator, not based on an empirical test of logical morality. This is what lead Hitler to power, and it is what undid the United States over time. It's simply a matter of when, not if they will be turned against what was once "popular opinion" and back to the tyranny of the progressives.
So I suggest everyone get over their Rothbard versus Rand BS and start recognizing that both were hugely right, and both were wrong at times and both are useful to coming together and recognizing the correct, right and moral path to a free nation. Everyone will be better for it and in the long run it is the only hope for true and lasting freedom. Both are necessary.
So the uneducated atheist/non-christian who is a blind shill of the state is somehow more preferable to the uneducated christian who is a blind shill of the state?
DeleteThe spiritual world isn't the enemy of Liberty, miseducation is the enemy of liberty. Ignorance is the enemy. As you rightly said, it's important for people to understand why they believe what they believe. To that end, public schooling has done a much greater disservice to society than religion.
It should be noted also that religion has had it's fair share of horrors, and many authentic christians actively oppose, and have opposed, the deep institutionalism of the church.
Maybe I'm a little dense, but why should anyone care what the Kochtopus's CATO does, says or trys to accomplish? CATO is solidly devoted to preserving the status quo, and always has been, at least in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteIt's really difficult for me to work up much of a feeling about CATO's direction. Sorry, but I just don't get it.
Rand's views - and NOT those of her sadistic 'followers' at ARI - are essential to the winning of the freedom philosophy revolution. Her atheism may make her unpoplular with the Christians, but their faith in the virtues of faith and altruism makes them unfit to lead a revolution promoting liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Religion is the hand-maiden of tyranny. It teaches people to be what the state needs them to be: lovers of their own enemies.
ReplyDeleteI read Mises's 'Theory of Money and Credit' because Rand recommended it in one of her newsletters. Much as I agree with Robert Wenzel's economics, his belief that we need to understand the technical details of economics is very wrong. We merely need to understand that violence and counterfeiting are wrong. We need to understand why Reardon was given a gold bar. Ten-year-old children can understand a correct moral and political philosophy. It requires years of Sunday school and government education to produce the legions of faithful war-mongering fools that make up the adult population.
Rand appealed to young people because she saw the moral and epistemological fundamentals so clearly. Blabbing about marginal utility, the regression theorem, methodological individualism adds little of value. Referring to a "church of Rand" isn't just dishonest, it is malicious.
I find little to disagree with when I read Robert Wenzel, but I find nothing original either. And now he is beginning to stink of intellectual envy. Pretending that his academic economic minutiae is essential and that Rand's revolutionary moral fundamentalism is trivial 'cheerleading' is the precise opposite of the truth.
-John Howard
Very much in agreement! I had many of the same thoughts when I read this and other posts like it.
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteWell said!
DeleteYou are probably underestimating the effectiveness of introducing libertarian thought to the general public through the use of an easily understood novel. To the average reader, Hayek, Mises, etc., are dense, technical material not easily understood by the average, non-economically or politically inclined individual. Why not encourage this tactic? We need numbers, not wonks.
ReplyDelete"We need numbers, not wonks."
DeleteI'd suggest we need both.
They aren't/don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Cato needs to dumb down their website like Lew Rockwell did and include lots of articles written by chiropractors, conspiracy nuts, preppers, fluoride-in-the-water paranoids, Velikovsky Worlds in Collision theorists, Primal Diet Faddists and others who attract the white-trash vote.
ReplyDeleteFor those who aren't sure what is meant by an ad hominem argument, smearing by association, and name-calling, here they all are in a single stupid sentence. I would guess this Deep Thinker only respects what is issued forth by government licensed, and properly titled subsidized experts that show up on Sunday morning TV and on PBS.
DeleteSneering contempt is the mark of the collectivist bigot. And all collectivists are bigots.
-John Howard
White Trash
As far as making the moral case for Libertarianism, I think Stefan Molyneux is the best there is right now. He puts it all into one package- Austrian economics, Rand's metaphysics and epistemology, a-Theism and peaceful parenting. He's also an excellent apologist for the free-market. He goes after the global warming lunatics and eloquently explains the root causes of the economic/societal problems we're facing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure he's the "best", but he is awfully good.
DeleteThe "best" is probably a moving target. Regardless, I sometimes wonder if he might have been "excommunicated" from LRC for not playing well with others...which is a shame if that's the case.
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead woke me up, so to speak, and got me on the right track intellectually. I still go back to Rand's writing when I need encouragement or to help me understand why something is the way it is in the world. Ayn Rand is done far more for the cause of liberty in recent times than any other writer. Her books make these ideas accessible and allow more people to understand what they have probably always felt but never been able to articulate.
ReplyDeleteRand was a philosopher qua philosopher. Much better than Mises and Hayek as a philosopher and much better in views of natural rights, her disavowal of altruism and her epistemological thinking.
ReplyDeleteRothbard is Rand's superior in economics, revisionist history, political philosophy and is closer to her philosophically as an Aristotelian-Thomist than Mises or Hayek.
All three by the way are atheists.
In the long run the cult stuff doesn't matter. The Brandens' set it up with the blank check Rand should never have given them and ARI carries this on. But 99.99% of the people who read her and agree with her are never in any movement or cult.
About 99.99% of Rand's critics are also out to lunch.
There are some embarrassing Randroids like James Valliant, Edwin Locke and Leonard Peikoff but with not too much effort you can separate the Randian baby from the bathwater and the mountain of excrement some Randroids have piled up over the years.
It's not either/or.
The good thing with the CATO Institute using mainly the moral argument, which is a good one, is that they might stop supporting the Federal Reserve.
ReplyDelete