Where did Ayn Rand disagree with "libertarians" ??

[RileyE104]

I put libertarian in quotes because since I'm not too familiar with Rand, IDK what her definition of libertarianism is.

I did hear from Dr. Paul once that she was very militant when it comes to foreign policy.

Other than that, I have no clue where the disagreement and extreme hatred of libertarians comes from.

[Grubb556]

Rand could have possibly been referring to the party. But I found this interesting

"The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

[low preference guy]

Rand could have possibly been referring to the party. But I found this interesting

"The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

The other side of that dispute: Is Objectivism a Cult? (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult1.html)

[Jtorsella]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

[Jtorsella]

Bump

[Jtorsella]

Bump

[RileyE104]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

Thanks!

[emazur]

It wasn't just libertarians, Rand tended to dislike everyone. She would excommunicate any of her friends and associates for the smallest deviation from her own beliefs

[Sentient Void]

It wasn't just libertarians, Rand tended to dislike everyone. She would excommunicate any of her friends and associates for the smallest deviation from her own beliefs

This right here. It's not so much a logically consistent disagreement with 'libertarians' so much as her own brutal personality problems and extreme ego (which Rand worship didn't really help from her 'inner circle', etc).

Enjoy...

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

[NidStyles]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Ironically, Rand was barely a Capitalist. She was more of a Mercantilist.

[Xenophage]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

Spot-on analysis.

I think, as an objectivist myself, that Rand got this horribly wrong, and her position against libertarianism was inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. That's an argument to be had between objectivists, I suppose.

Consider, for instance, that she wrote in support of Barry Goldwater, who was no objectivist! Yet she had to demonize John Hospers? She praised Ludwig von Mises, but she despised Murray Rothbard (the two of them had a volatile history). The inconsistency is bothersome, but then again all humans have faults.

[Xenophage]

Ironically, Rand was barely a Capitalist. She was more of a Mercantilist.

You either don't know what mercantilism or capitalism are, or you've never read or comprehended Ayn Rand. Or both.

[JuicyG]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

She envisioned an extremely limited government. A judicial system composed of courthouse and law enforcement but that was her whole idea of government basically.

She came from Russia, where people had a very close hand experience with left wing anarchism. It was deeply rooted in their culture as the beginning of 20th century was marked by anarchist movements in Russia, Ukraine, France, Spain and other places.
Even Lenin dodged an assassination attempt by anarchist rivals who wanted to take the marxist revolution in the anarchist direction.
In the US, the left wing anarchists assassinated a US president(William McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley)), which in turn created a law to expel and ban anarchists from the country. Some like Emma Goldman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman) were deported at the time.

So, I think, Ayn didn`t want to associate herself with such anarchist elements. She probably wanted to play it safe and dissociate herself with anarcho-capitalists also.

In Atlas Shrugged, there`s a point there where they go in search of that motor and stumble upon an anarchist society, however it`s a left wing anarchist society that banned use of money and only exchanged goods. That`s the type of anarcho-communist society envisioned by some marxists, where the use of money was removed. I think this is the kind of anarchism she had in mind when she spoke of anarchism. It was mostly left-wing anarchism.

[Freeberty]

She had a few "disagreements" although I would classify them as "differences". I'll try to list as many as I can.

1. The tendency to anarchy.
Rand was an advocate against anarchy, as she believed we needed a government solely to protect our negative rights, but anything greater or less than that was immoral. She thought the libertarians had too many who tended towards anarchy and, being an absolutist, didn't want to associate herself with those she philosophically had differences.

2. Foreign Policy
Rand is often misunderstood as a neocon. This is false. But she had some disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. She thought that we needed an army that would pursue our self interest. This means no nation building or foreign aid. It is unclear how this would clash with noninterventionism, but she thought, probably wrongly, that many early libertarians opposed having an army to protect rights, and were so pacifist that they would compromise the self interest of the rational individual by giving up property to stay out of war.

3. Not having the 'complete picture'.
Rand always said that she could only support those who made the 'right' argument for the morality of capitalism. She thought it was the right of each individual to pursue his own rational self interest that justified the morality of free markets and property rights. She thought that anyone arguing for capitalism from altruism would end up hurting the cause because they were not presenting the correct and full argument. This is why she could not support a coalition without a stated philosophy or code of ethics. This was also the reason she opposed conservatism as they argued for capitalism from faith, and she thought this would put up an innacurate representation of capitalism. She really could only support a coalition which had objectivism as its philosophy, and since libertarianism is open to altruists and people of faith, she could not support it, and even advocated against it.

The third reason is the most substantial, but all of them come from her absolutism. These are only my interpretations, and corrections are welcome.

This

[NidStyles]

You either don't know what mercantilism or capitalism are, or you've never read or comprehended Ayn Rand. Or both.

Rather you are just wrong yourself, and making brash assumptions about me without a rational backing.

Rand supported the standing of Corporations. She also supported the externalizations of the labor to reduce costs at lower real wages, not nominal wages. That is the core of Mercantilism. All of her complaints of the constant interference of the State were negated by her open support of the States replacement in society which is the Corporation. Outside of nomenclature they operate essentially the same.

Thanks for being condescending though.

[Vessol]

I've always found it kind of funny that Ayn Rand was opposed to anarchism so much, yet in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged she clearly describes a anarcho-capitalist society in great detail, Galt's Gulch.

Not only that, but there is many arguments by various characters such as Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden, talking about the force and violence that the State must use in order to exist.

I think her opposition to Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism had more to do with personal feelings in her own life rather than any rational or logical argument. If I am wrong, I would most welcome someone to show that I am wrong. The few Objectivists I've talked to have only used a few quotes by her and then called it a day, so it really wasn't substantiated.

[JuicyG]

I've always found it kind of funny that Ayn Rand was opposed to anarchism so much, yet in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged she clearly describes a anarcho-capitalist society in great detail, Galt's Gulch.

Not only that, but there is many arguments by various characters such as Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden, talking about the force and violence that the State must use in order to exist.

I think her opposition to Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism had more to do with personal feelings in her own life rather than any rational or logical argument. If I am wrong, I would most welcome someone to show that I am wrong. The few Objectivists I've talked to have only used a few quotes by her and then called it a day, so it really wasn't substantiated.

In Galt`s community there was a courthouse. She thought courthouses and judicial branch should be the essence of government.
Though, in Atlantis, the courthouse was run by a judge they`ve picked. I believe book doesn`t go into much detail explaining how that judge was actually paid, by whole community(statist) or by persons he serviced(free market).

Anyways, as I`ve described in my earlier post, I believe her aversion to anarchism stems from experience with left wing anarchism. She also describes in Atlas Shrugged a moneyless left wing anarchist society when they go looking for that motor.

I do agree with you that Galt`s Atlantis was basically an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian kind of city.

[Xenophage]

Rather you are just wrong yourself, and making brash assumptions about me without a rational backing.

Rand supported the standing of Corporations. She also supported the externalizations of the labor to reduce costs at lower real wages, not nominal wages. That is the core of Mercantilism. All of her complaints of the constant interference of the State were negated by her open support of the States replacement in society which is the Corporation. Outside of nomenclature they operate essentially the same.

Thanks for being condescending though.

Gibberish.

Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. They are legal contracts between share holders delineating the ownership of property. There is nothing wrong with corporations - they happen to be extremely effective tools of industry. Why would anyone be anti-corporation, unless they are also anti-property, anti-trade, and pro-force?

Corporations are not states. They are not replacements for states. They do not use force. If a corporation wishes to engage in force, it has to grovel at the heels of the State, which has a monopoly on force. Corporations are amoral. They exist to make profit for the shareholders. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the State within which they exist. If they can use government, they will.

But what if the government had no power to lay taxes, to wage wars, or to violate the rights of others? What if corporations could garner no special privledges from government? What if government existed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and never played favorites?

[NidStyles]

Gibberish.

More condescending remarks I see.


Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. They are legal contracts between share holders delineating the ownership of property. There is nothing wrong with corporations - they happen to be extremely effective tools of industry. Why would anyone be anti-corporation, unless they are also anti-property, anti-trade, and pro-force?

Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.


Corporations are not states. They are not replacements for states. They do not use force. If a corporation wishes to engage in force, it has to grovel at the heels of the State, which has a monopoly on force. Corporations are amoral. They exist to make profit for the shareholders. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the State within which they exist. If they can use government, they will.

So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State? Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year? Corporations do not Grovel, if that were true the President would not have massive donations from the financial sector to back his bid for re-election. Romney would not be also garnering the same backing. In reality it's the other way around, the Individuals that operate the State beg for donations for re-election with the promise of preferential treatment.

The corporations created the legal framework that they are working in, why do you think they donate to candidates?

There are no moral arguments here, it's purely Ethical. Morality is a flawed concept based upon Individual ideas of good or evil. Individual morality is flawed in that it can not be applied to everyone, so the argument you are making as a pseudo Libertarian would not apply to everyone if based on morality.



But what if the government had no power to lay taxes, to wage wars, or to violate the rights of others? What if corporations could garner no special privledges from government? What if government existed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and never played favorites?

Corporations would take over the role, if they were still standing after such a collapse. As it stands now the Wars are started and fought at the behest of the Corporations. Unless you really think the Federal Government truly had a motive to invade Iraq. Oddly enough the only people that made out on that deal were the Corporations that struck it big on no bid contracts. Go figure, it was also the same Corporations that donated and put Bush into office.

It's silly for anti-Statists to support an organization that operates in the same manner as the States they so despise. I would prefer no Government, rather some unrealistic utopia that would never happen.

[angelatc]

More condescending remarks I see.

It's not condescending if it's true. Take the left-wing tirade-of-the-year somewhere else.


So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State?

We don't lose the right to petition the government as a result of our associations, even though you apparently think we should.


Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year?

Assuming you mean rolls, GE pays taxes every year. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/2011/04/05/AFZm0L9C_story.html) Again, you're spewing socialist rhetoric, and in fact, most of us think that corporations should pay no taxes anyway.

The government shouldn't have the right to give our money away like it does, but because they do, it's ridiculous to blame the people who ask for it. They're not the problem.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Being against Corporate charter is not a left wing position. Corporations have many State-granted immunities, privileges, and advantages where none would exist without the State. Corporations are relatively new and are ideas born out of the Monarchy and late 19th Century Statist policy proposals.

Trusts, partnerships, and other forms of associations are all perfectly acceptable within the NAP and Property Right paradigm (self-proprietorship). This is an area where a lot of libertarians get it right, and a lot get it wrong. Perhaps those for Corporations here should read the history and legalese that created these abominations. They are artificial State-constructs, not market constructs.

[PaulConventionWV]

Spot-on analysis.

I think, as an objectivist myself, that Rand got this horribly wrong, and her position against libertarianism was inconsistent with the rest of her philosophy. That's an argument to be had between objectivists, I suppose.

Consider, for instance, that she wrote in support of Barry Goldwater, who was no objectivist! Yet she had to demonize John Hospers? She praised Ludwig von Mises, but she despised Murray Rothbard (the two of them had a volatile history). The inconsistency is bothersome, but then again all humans have faults.

I suppose she wasn't being very objective in that respect.

[JohnGalt1225]

I've read much Rand's work and she's very smart. I'm not an objectivist but I'm closer to an objectivist than an AnCap.

[The Free Hornet]

More condescending remarks I see.



Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.



So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State?

You are confusing what corporations are with what some corporations do. Also, you would have a point if you mentioned the words "limited liability".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability#Criticisms

Do this and you might even get someone to agree with you.


Edit: See and understand "Austrian" above. That said it is an open question how different a non-sanctioned corporation would be.


It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability#Criticisms

[klamath]

In the end she would most likely not have voted for RP because of her strong support of israel.

[Grubb556]

How is supporting libertarianism plagarism ? Libertarianism is just modern classic liberalism which exsisted long before Rand's time.

[GBurr]

It think it should be kept in mind that libertarianism is a political philosophy. Objectivism is a philosophy that deals with politics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Ayn Rand could also be extremely intolerant. In many instances she refused to deal with those who weren't Objectivists.

[JuicyG]

In the end she would most likely not have voted for RP because of her strong support of israel.

By the contrary. She might have voted for Ron Paul because he`s supporter of Israel. He wants to give them back their freedom to act as sovereign nation.

Rand also hated handouts. So put lack of freedom and state handouts together and ask yourself if Ayn Rand would have supported that.

If you think she`d have supported it, you obviously didn`t read her books.

[klamath]

By the contrary. She might have voted for Ron Paul because he`s supporter of Israel. He wants to give them back their freedom to act as sovereign nation.

Rand also hated handouts. So put lack of freedom and state handouts together and ask yourself if Ayn Rand would have supported that.

If you think she`d have supported it, you obviously didn`t read her books.
Who's side we should be on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

[The Free Hornet]

It wasn't just libertarians, Rand tended to dislike everyone. She would excommunicate any of her friends and associates for the smallest deviation from her own beliefs

I excommunicate people all the time, sometimes whole businesses if my fast food order gets screwed up. The other day, this dog barked at me. So I excommunicated it and now what is it going to bark about?

[Xenophage]

More condescending remarks I see.

Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.

They argued against cronyism, mercantilism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it - not against the idea of corporations themselves. The State should not have the power to play favorites in the economy.

The single most distinguishing characteristic of a corporation is limited liability. When a corporation fails, shareholders lose their investments, but they are not liable to pay back the banks for any debts the corporation took on. Banks agree to lend money to corporations with this understanding, and it is a calculated risk that they take. Limited liability encourages investment, and discourages debt. This is a double benefit!

Corporations also typically set up an organizational structure quite unlike a trust. They're a distinct sort of entity.




So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State? Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year? Corporations do not Grovel, if that were true the President would not have massive donations from the financial sector to back his bid for re-election. Romney would not be also garnering the same backing. In reality it's the other way around, the Individuals that operate the State beg for donations for re-election with the promise of preferential treatment.

The corporations created the legal framework that they are working in, why do you think they donate to candidates?


You didn't even read what I wrote. I said corporations are amoral, and will use government to their advantage when they can. But without a willing government, corporations cannot use force.

That's called grovelling. Pat my back, I'll pat yours, except only one party actually has *power*. That's the government, who has guns and tanks and the mob. Governments don't need corporations and governments can destroy the corporations.



There are no moral arguments here, it's purely Ethical. Morality is a flawed concept based upon Individual ideas of good or evil. Individual morality is flawed in that it can not be applied to everyone, so the argument you are making as a pseudo Libertarian would not apply to everyone if based on morality.


Ethics is the study of morality, so you're spouting gibberish again. Good and evil are not 'flawed concepts.' If you know your values, you can determine rationally and objectively whether or not something is going to be good or evil. Politics is directly derived from ethics in philosophy. If you're an ethical nihilist and you don't believe in good or evil, that drives your politics just as much as someone who's an absolutist.




Corporations would take over the role, if they were still standing after such a collapse. As it stands now the Wars are started and fought at the behest of the Corporations. Unless you really think the Federal Government truly had a motive to invade Iraq. Oddly enough the only people that made out on that deal were the Corporations that struck it big on no bid contracts. Go figure, it was also the same Corporations that donated and put Bush into office.

It's silly for anti-Statists to support an organization that operates in the same manner as the States they so despise. I would prefer no Government, rather some unrealistic utopia that would never happen.

Like I said, corporations will use the gun of the government if it is available to be used. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the state. The state will use them when it suits their purpose, and crush them when that suits their purpose. I only wish more CEO's understood the double-edged nature of government.

I'm not arguing for a utopia. I'm pointing out the simple logic of clearly delineating the role of government to one of a passive protector of property rights.

[Xenophage]

Being against Corporate charter is not a left wing position. Corporations have many State-granted immunities, privileges, and advantages where none would exist without the State. Corporations are relatively new and are ideas born out of the Monarchy and late 19th Century Statist policy proposals.

Trusts, partnerships, and other forms of associations are all perfectly acceptable within the NAP and Property Right paradigm (self-proprietorship). This is an area where a lot of libertarians get it right, and a lot get it wrong. Perhaps those for Corporations here should read the history and legalese that created these abominations. They are artificial State-constructs, not market constructs.

I will research this more, but I have to say I don't see any problem with any voluntary association of individuals and contractual agreements. I'm unaware of any violation of the NAP within the concept of a corporation.

[DRHChi]

I've gotten the sense that Rand thought all charity was immoral - not just state handouts but private individuals giving what they have to those in need.

Can someone more knowledgeable on Rand's positions either verify or dispute this? Its just what I've gotten from listening to her supporters criticise Bill Gates and others from spending their wealth on charity.

If she does have this viewpoint it's one I detest, and one I hope most libertarians, in fact all people, reject

[Jtorsella]

I've gotten the sense that Rand thought all charity was immoral - not just state handouts but private individuals giving what they have to those in need.

Can someone more knowledgeable on Rand's positions either verify or dispute this? Its just what I've gotten from listening to her supporters criticise Bill Gates and others from spending their wealth on charity.

If she does have this viewpoint it's one I detest, and one I hope most libertarians, in fact all people, reject
You have to read her books. Please don't discredit her views before you have read them.
And your sense is correct. Watch this interview to learn more, but I'd suggest reading the fountainhead for more info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

[PaulConventionWV]

More condescending remarks I see.



Voluntary associations that would not exist without Government Charters and licensing...... A legal contract between shareholders without the Government involvement would be a Trust. There you go making assumptions again. This is the problem with most modern Libertarians, they ignore everything Mises said. Even Jefferson was against Corporations as they exist.



So Corporations do not Lobby the Government for preferential treatment with regards to powers of the State? Did you simply close your eye's when GE was let off on it's tax fouls last year? Corporations do not Grovel, if that were true the President would not have massive donations from the financial sector to back his bid for re-election. Romney would not be also garnering the same backing. In reality it's the other way around, the Individuals that operate the State beg for donations for re-election with the promise of preferential treatment.

The corporations created the legal framework that they are working in, why do you think they donate to candidates?

There are no moral arguments here, it's purely Ethical. Morality is a flawed concept based upon Individual ideas of good or evil. Individual morality is flawed in that it can not be applied to everyone, so the argument you are making as a pseudo Libertarian would not apply to everyone if based on morality.




Corporations would take over the role, if they were still standing after such a collapse. As it stands now the Wars are started and fought at the behest of the Corporations. Unless you really think the Federal Government truly had a motive to invade Iraq. Oddly enough the only people that made out on that deal were the Corporations that struck it big on no bid contracts. Go figure, it was also the same Corporations that donated and put Bush into office.

It's silly for anti-Statists to support an organization that operates in the same manner as the States they so despise. I would prefer no Government, rather some unrealistic utopia that would never happen.

Finally, someone who gets it!

However, I think you give too much credit to the corporations themselves. The elites that control the money supply and the policy are more than just people who got rich from business. The framework for this nation and the people who currently control its policy have been around for a long time through generations. This isn't something all the corporations got together to decide yesterday, and they are not the only ones who had a strong hand getting people elected.

What you said about morality was spot on, though!

[PaulConventionWV]

It's not condescending if it's true. Take the left-wing tirade-of-the-year somewhere else.



We don't lose the right to petition the government as a result of our associations, even though you apparently think we should.



Assuming you mean rolls, GE pays taxes every year. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/2011/04/05/AFZm0L9C_story.html) Again, you're spewing socialist rhetoric, and in fact, most of us think that corporations should pay no taxes anyway.

The government shouldn't have the right to give our money away like it does, but because they do, it's ridiculous to blame the people who ask for it. They're not the problem.

I agree that we shouldn't blame people who ask for it. I didn't see where the poster you replied to said that, though. I also don't see why you call it "socialist rhetoric." It's not socialist, it's just anti-corporatist. What he's saying is that many of the corporations that exist today wouldn't be nearly as big as they are now without the help of government. That is 100% true.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ethics is the study of morality, so you're spouting gibberish again. Good and evil are not 'flawed concepts.' If you know your values, you can determine rationally and objectively whether or not something is going to be good or evil. Politics is directly derived from ethics in philosophy. If you're an ethical nihilist and you don't believe in good or evil, that drives your politics just as much as someone who's an absolutist.

Morality cannot be determined as truth from an individual standpoint. You are saying everyone should know what morality is and what right and wrong is, but you are forgetting that there is no universal standard for this unless it comes from God. What's moral to one person might be amoral to another if they are simply left to determine morality for thesmelves. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed to say that every individual should follow a moral framework, when you don't even know what moral framework they believe in. What you are assuming is that your idea of morality is automatically the best understanding of good and evil because your understanding is "normal" and has a set of principles that you believe are right. Many others may have a moral framework that does not include those principles. There is no way to tell which one is objectively right unless there is an absolute authority that makes one framework binding on everyone. Individual understanding can never do this. This is one of the things wrong with Rand's philosophy as well as your understanding of it.

[DRHChi]

You have to read her books. Please don't discredit her views before you have read them.
And your sense is correct. Watch this interview to learn more, but I'd suggest reading the fountainhead for more info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

One day I'll give Fountainhead a shot. I've read Anthem and consider it one of the greatest literary works I've ever found, even if it is short. I know she is a great writer and ultimately a great thinker, but I do think she is dead wrong on charity.

[MrTudo]

Yeah well didn't Ayn Rand end up collecting social security? I'll bet there's a good excuse for that right?

There's a group ( maybe it should be written in the past tense) who refused to "collect" social security when they hit that age. Wasn't Dr Sennholz in that group? ( how many here even know who that is without "searching the internet"? )

[Brett85]

Gibberish.

Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. They are legal contracts between share holders delineating the ownership of property. There is nothing wrong with corporations - they happen to be extremely effective tools of industry. Why would anyone be anti-corporation, unless they are also anti-property, anti-trade, and pro-force?

Corporations are not states. They are not replacements for states. They do not use force. If a corporation wishes to engage in force, it has to grovel at the heels of the State, which has a monopoly on force. Corporations are amoral. They exist to make profit for the shareholders. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the State within which they exist. If they can use government, they will.

But what if the government had no power to lay taxes, to wage wars, or to violate the rights of others? What if corporations could garner no special privledges from government? What if government existed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and never played favorites?

This. A lot of the people here sound like Marxists in their criticism of corporations.

[JuicyG]

Yeah well didn't Ayn Rand end up collecting social security? I'll bet there's a good excuse for that right?

There's a group ( maybe it should be written in the past tense) who refused to "collect" social security when they hit that age. Wasn't Dr Sennholz in that group? ( how many here even know who that is without "searching the internet"? )

Since state steals money through taxes what`s wrong with getting some back? I bet she paid more to state in taxes than she ever got back via social security.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

This. A lot of the people here sound like Marxists in their criticism of corporations.

It is my understanding that a lot of left libertarians appreciate Marx. Essentially they would have a society with no state, no private property-but everything shared collectively in anarchy.

[JuicyG]

Who's side we should be on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Yes, I`ve seen that a while ago.

Not once in that video did she say she supports giving foreign aid to Israel.

She just said US shouldn`t take the part of Palestinians. She goes on to say Israel is the more civilized country. When she said US should support Israel, I`m pretty sure she didn`t have in mind giving Israel free money and block Israel from acting according to its political agenda, thus taking away its sovereignty.

However, saying she`d support giving handouts to countries is quite a stretch. She was against the very idea of handouts.

[klamath]

Yes, I`ve seen that a while ago.

Not once in that video does she say she supports giving foreign aid to Israel.

She just said US shouldn`t take the part of Palestinians. She goes on to say Israel is the more civilized country. When she said US should support Israel, I`m pretty sure she didn`t have in mind giving Israel free money and block Israel from acting according to its political agenda, thus taking away its sovereignty.

However, saying she`d support handouts quite a stretch. She was against the idea of handouts. I never said she was for handouts. I said she probably wouldn't have voted for RP because he doesn't hold Israel above the muslim nations. It is very common for libertarians to support RP on everything except israel and his lack of hate for muslims.

[Xenophage]

Morality cannot be determined as truth from an individual standpoint. You are saying everyone should know what morality is and what right and wrong is, but you are forgetting that there is no universal standard for this unless it comes from God. What's moral to one person might be amoral to another if they are simply left to determine morality for thesmelves. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed to say that every individual should follow a moral framework, when you don't even know what moral framework they believe in. What you are assuming is that your idea of morality is automatically the best understanding of good and evil because your understanding is "normal" and has a set of principles that you believe are right. Many others may have a moral framework that does not include those principles. There is no way to tell which one is objectively right unless there is an absolute authority that makes one framework binding on everyone. Individual understanding can never do this. This is one of the things wrong with Rand's philosophy as well as your understanding of it.

Now you want to make it a religious argument! God has nothing to with my morality, which is entirely rational and based on simply recognizing the facts of reality, understanding my nature as a human being and identifying the principles that support my ultimate values.

As a human being I value life and happiness. I can see quite clearly the things that lead to death and misery are evil, and the things that lead to life and happiness are good. I understand the logic of a moral code that says, "Thou shalt not kill," but I do not accept moral commandments, which is a sort of anti-concept. Morality only deals with choices. It is predicated upon freewill. I choose to be moral, because I choose life and happiness.

The base values and moral codes that lead to life and happiness for me are really the same for everyone, because we're all human beings. We all share the same needs. It is just as irrational for you to engage in murder and theft and other forms of violence as it is for me. Morality is objective, and it can be objectively identified by logic.

Furthermore, even if I believed in God, I wouldn't accept his moral commandments on unquestioning faith. I'd need to understand why his commandments were good. God surely should have no problem formulating a simple logical argument. If he wants me not to think for myself, then perhaps his commandments aren't so good. Perhaps I'm a slave! I'd rather burn in hell.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/01/20/roderick-long/the-winnowing-of-ayn-rand/

Roderick Long on Ayn Rand

[KingRobbStark]

Rand was horrible as a person, but people shouldn't lump it with her philosophy/

[MrTudo]

Since state steals money through taxes what`s wrong with getting some back? I bet she paid more to state in taxes than she ever got back via social security.

It will never end with that way of thinking imo ( howz it goin so far? ). I know people who in there 40's started collecting social security and have had multiple heart operations on medicare/medicaid ( I get confused between the programs ). One justified it that he paid into it for so long he's only getting it back. The other of course "just needs help".

The wheel goes round.

[Xenophage]

It will never end with that way of thinking imo ( howz it goin so far? ). I know people who in there 40's started collecting social security and have had multiple heart operations on medicare/medicaid ( I get confused between the programs ). One justified it that he paid into it for so long he's only getting it back. The other of course "just needs help".

The wheel goes round.

But it's true. I get my stolen money back when I can. I took UI for six months while I looked for a new job. Any other option is just martyring yourself. The insidious thing about a welfare state is that it oftentimes forces you to participate. If I didn't take the UI, I'd been on the street. The Welfare state doesn't care if you don't take your share, either.

Better to take the money, while publicly advocating against the institution. It's not hypocritical to participate as long as you don't demonize others who participate, as well. Attack the system, don't blame the victims.

Besides, participating in the welfare state is the surest and quickest way to witness its demise. It's a self-defeating system.

[Jtorsella]

Yeah Rand had many character flaws, but her philosophy was incredible.

[low preference guy]

..

[matt0611]

Yeah well didn't Ayn Rand end up collecting social security? I'll bet there's a good excuse for that right?

There's a group ( maybe it should be written in the past tense) who refused to "collect" social security when they hit that age. Wasn't Dr Sennholz in that group? ( how many here even know who that is without "searching the internet"? )

I was forced to pay into Social Security all my life. You bet I'm going to take my money back thank you.

I bet Ayn Rand used roads right? What a hypocrite right? :rolleyes:

[NidStyles]

They argued against cronyism, mercantilism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it - not against the idea of corporations themselves. The State should not have the power to play favorites in the economy.

Corporations are innately Cronyistic, Mercantilist, and Corporatist. All of those concepts evolved from the existence of Corporations in the first place. You really need to start looking up where these words you are throwing around actually came from, because you are a grossly misusing some of them. That's not uncommon these days though.


The single most distinguishing characteristic of a corporation is limited liability. When a corporation fails, shareholders lose their investments, but they are not liable to pay back the banks for any debts the corporation took on. Banks agree to lend money to corporations with this understanding, and it is a calculated risk that they take. Limited liability encourages investment, and discourages debt. This is a double benefit!

Corporations also typically set up an organizational structure quite unlike a trust. They're a distinct sort of entity.

That's not Limited Liability. Limited Liability means that the participants and the customers can't sue you for improper issuance of shares or investment property. Limited Liability is what you have with a Trust or an LLC. An LLC is a misnomer, as it's not really a Corporation. There's no Charter or founding legal document required to form an LLC, just a payment to the local or Federal Government for the licensing.

A Trust is honest, because it keeps the people responsible for their actions while isolating their financial situation from their idiocy. It's almost the direct opposite of a Corporation.



You didn't even read what I wrote. I said corporations are amoral, and will use government to their advantage when they can. But without a willing government, corporations cannot use force.

Yes, I read what you wrote, but you are wrong. Corporations will use their own ability to project force even without a Government. You really need to go out study on the effects of the Corporation in Third World nations where there is little to no Government in the first place. De Beers would be a good example.


That's called grovelling. Pat my back, I'll pat yours, except only one party actually has *power*. That's the government, who has guns and tanks and the mob. Governments don't need corporations and governments can destroy the corporations.

"Money is Power", was a saying in the 80's. Politicians do not get re-elected without buying those positions, they have to make deals in order to get that money. The Corporations are the ones with the Money. Who has the power again?

LMAO!! The last time a Government tried destroying a Corporation int he US we had a Stock Market crash and Recession that was greater than all of the previous ones, that was 1907. The only one that ever truly superseded it was the crash of 1921. Governments can destroy Corporations LOL! Corporations are the largest organized institutions on the planet. There are some of them whose own Revenue flow rivals that of entire nations. Just check out Wal-Mart, or any of the JPM holdings. These are institutions that bail out countries, and they buy out other Corporations regularly.



Ethics is the study of morality, so you're spouting gibberish again. Good and evil are not 'flawed concepts.' If you know your values, you can determine rationally and objectively whether or not something is going to be good or evil. Politics is directly derived from ethics in philosophy. If you're an ethical nihilist and you don't believe in good or evil, that drives your politics just as much as someone who's an absolutist.

Wrong, the word Ethics was derived in Greece roughly 1800 years before the concept of Morality was created by the Catholic Church. Ethics is a the study of Principled action. Morality is the study of Right and Wrong.

There is nothing rational about determining "Good" and "Evil". They are both completely subjective and asinine terms that lead to nothing but Statism and war.

Politics is derived from Philosophical discussion between Individuals on how they want something done... It has nothing to do with Ethics or Morality. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, placing morality upon a damn pedestal and trying to serve some sort of twisted idealism of State.

I've gotten the Dr. Paul on this more than once every time he comes here to AZ. Every time he tells me that he knows the difference, but he's so used to calling it Morality, and most people do not understand the difference so he sticks to calling it Morality.



Like I said, corporations will use the gun of the government if it is available to be used. Their activities will reflect the legal and moral framework of the state. The state will use them when it suits their purpose, and crush them when that suits their purpose. I only wish more CEO's understood the double-edged nature of government.

They use the Governments gun, because it's easier and cheaper than them using their own. If you truly believe what you are stating here then I have to ask you to go read up on the Corporations that built the Railroads in this country were established and how they operated. I'm serious, go read up on it. You'll find exactly what i have told you here, in the absence of Government guns the Corporation will bring it's own. Statism is Statism, no matter the shape or form.


I'm not arguing for a utopia. I'm pointing out the simple logic of clearly delineating the role of government to one of a passive protector of property rights.

You are not using logic though. Logic would mean that you use precise language with properly worded statements where the etymology and the applied meaning correlate properly without contradiction. To put it politely, you haven't even come close to that here.


Finally, someone who gets it!

However, I think you give too much credit to the corporations themselves. The elites that control the money supply and the policy are more than just people who got rich from business. The framework for this nation and the people who currently control its policy have been around for a long time through generations. This isn't something all the corporations got together to decide yesterday, and they are not the only ones who had a strong hand getting people elected.

What you said about morality was spot on, though!

I've been writing about this topic for years. Morality was argued about by Hayek, and eventually Rothbard won out due to him still being alive. Event he origin of the word Morality can be traced to meaning a subjective measure of Good and Bad, as Morality was being determined by the Pope. The whole idea to use such a methodology is insane.



This. A lot of the people here sound like Marxists in their criticism of corporations.

It's so easy to stand back and use labels when a person says something you might not understand or do not like, because you do not understand it. Marx was all for Corporations, but in his form of Socialism they were called Co-op, or Co-operative and Communes. In the American form of Socialism, they are called Corporations.

[low preference guy]

There is nothing rational about determining "Good" and "Evil". They are both completely subjective and asinine terms that lead to nothing but Statism and war.

Then there is nothing wrong with opposing the State. If evil is an useless concept, then Statism isn't evil, so there is no reason to oppose it.