Ayn Rand is an Objectivist, which is basically a form of Neolibertarianism, whereas Murray Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist, and Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian. All three are pro-capitalism and pro-freedom. Rand is more in favor of an aggressive foreign policy, whereas Paul is not, and Rothbard obviously does not believe in the legitimacy of the USA.
Also, Rand is sexist and homophobic, if you ask me…
She’d make Hoppe blush even.
Where did Rothbard (or Paul) say that truth can be anything but objective? Here’s Ron Paul on the subjective theory of value:
"There are some who have heard of the subjective theory of value but are hesitant to accept it because they prefer “objectivity” to “subjectivity.” Yet if consumers subjectively set prices and values by affecting supply and demand (and thus sales), this is an important objective finding.
I thought there was some disagreement between Rand and Rothbard on corporate capitalism. Can you give me more on this?
No he wasnt. He was an agnostic, and Rand’s belligerent atheism was in part, the cause of him leaving her circle.
Interesting to listen to the interviews with Rand (very late in life). Most of her errors strike me as an extension of a basic flaw on which she was never challenged by her contemporaries: the idea that ideas can continue to be exclusively owned once they are generally shared. This was a core conviction of hers, and she held it all her life, and, to my knowledge, was never really challenged on this point. She took it further than most but most everyone in those days shared her conviction.
Now presenting, Jeffrey Tucker, the actor of LvMi. In a daring epic playwright, Mozart was a red.
It’s a particularly rational brand. When will LvMI perform it again?
I find the “constant gang warfare” argument to be rather silly. If a population is inclined to disregard the non-aggression principle in the absence of a monopolist state, it’s absurd to believe that it would support and sustain a basically non-interventionist state rather than simply directing its aggressions through the “legal” channels of said state. I think Objectivists (and minarchists) are confusing the need for a more or less universal acceptance of a uniform ethics (non-aggression and respect for individual rights) with a monopoly on the enforcement of that standard. The acceptance by the general populace of the non-aggression principle is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for a free society with a capitalistic free market.
I heard that he was an atheist, but that his wife was Catholic (and that is what bothered Rand’s Collective). Does anyone have some real evidence to settle this issue?
This is covered in the Burns book. The wife issue was only emblematic, part of a larger problem and greater tensions. I mean, Nate was now in charge. His goal was to create followers of Rand but preventing the stealing of her ideas, right? The only way to do that is to create a clone army that cites her with every sentence.
She didn’t believe there would be constant war because people be are inclided to disregard the non-aggression principle, but because people would be at the “mercy of the first criminal to come along”, to use her words. As in, she believed objective (proper) law couldn’t exist in anarchy. It has nothing to do with if people have tendencies to be “good” or “bad”, it’s the same reasons you think any laws should exist.
He was agnostic, his wife Presbyterian.
From the biographer of Rothbard`s Justin Raimondo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
In any case Ayn Rand far from being close to libertarianism is the farthest thing from a libertarian imaginable. Of all the terrible things the state does war is the worst. Thus it is necessary for any libertarian or a fellow traveller to oppose war. The first step towards libertarianism is to oppose the most criminal and the most destructive state programme of all. Ayn Rand never made this first step. A leftist who sincerely opposes war is already eons more libertarian than Ayn Rand ever was.
Worse jet she demanded war when waged be a total war on collectivist lines without any need for a distinction to be made between the government and the people, soldiers and civilians. That makes her not only not aligned with libertarians, but also a monster.
If we go to war with Russia, I hope the ‘innocent’ are destroyed with the guilty. … Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who’s standing behind him. ~ Ayn Rand
I’m curious, where is that quote from?
Even still, saying “if” a war occurs doesn’t mean a war should occur. The “innocent” in this case are people who are completely apathetic to oppression. I would hope that those are the people included in the destruction, too. It would not mean I’d join up in that war and kill as many people as possible. If anyone died (which always happens in war), I would prefer these people to be the ones that died.
I’m unfamiliar on her views on particular wars (i.e.Civil War or World War 2).
For more monstrous quotes see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualties
Her non-innocents are not only those who are completely apathetic, but the whole civilian population, even those who disagree with their government. Their failure to overthrow their government or to escape the country means they can be zapped without remorse.
“Nazi Germany did elect its dictatorship, and therefore, even those Germans who were against Hitler were responsible for that kind of government and had to suffer the consequences.”
Also your implying (I think?) that she did not necessarily advocate starting wars is not correct. She did not say she advocated launching wars in those words, but she claimed just establishing “a wrong kind of government” could be initiation of agression (the same as a declaration of war) against the USA and thus give the US enough reason to “defend” itself militarily. Ie, a socialist rising to power in Venezuela and nationalising oil companies meant Venezuela had attacked the USA and Venezuelans could now be nuked from the face of the earth without remorse.
Ayn Rand used the philosophy of induvidualism to advocate war along collectivist lines. I can not think of a more non-libertarian or more despicable philosophy.
And yet she opposed American entry into WWI, WWII, the Korea War, and the Vietnam War. She also wasn’t too fond of the military industrial complex.
She isn’t quite as simple as you make her out to be.
Probably not enough civilians were being killed for her taste.
She opposed wars on an ad-hoc basis of American self-interest, but on a moral level she gave USA the right to invade Germany or USSR even unprovoked.
How far did Rand go in defending corporate capitalism? Did she turn a blind eye to Big Business’s abuse of government? Did she go farther?
I am unfamiliar with the specifics that Rothbard talked about, but Rand always has seemed careful to emphasize that corporate capitalism is a very bad thing; I’ve never heard anything that can even be construed to be support of corporate capitalism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_robber_barons
may be a useful link (I can’t find a transcript unfortunately); around 2:30 and onward is the most relevent to your question.
blah blah blah. Good to know that the arms industry is a ‘myth’ though.