Mysticism of the Market: Why All Wise Libertarians Should Reject Ayn Rand PI Editorial
Libertarianism is not thought of well in the minds of the public. Among the notably small percentage of them that have even heard of it (that is, heard enough to form an opinion on it), a prevailing view among them is it’s basically a quasi-anarchist, uber-capitalist homily to Ayn Rand.
Sadly, listening to most of libertarianism’s public representatives, that's often all it is. Mainstream libertarianism (if such a thing even exists) seems to be unfortunately obsessed with pursuing impossible levels of renegade liberty and anarcho-capitalism.
Get government out of your life, now! End tax slavery! Privatize the FBI! Abolish all welfare! America should abandon the UN! Does it sound familiar? Such absurdities are sputtered by libertarianism’s pathetically-few public voices, from the fringe-dwelling Libertarian Party to various writers and commentators. Their anarchic fantasies have unfortunately been etched into the public perception of what constitutes “libertarianism,” which, as we’ll show, is due substantially to years of extremist advocacy by those who spent their formative political years being weaned on the exhortations of Ayn Rand.
However, the Prometheus Institute’s libertarianism thankfully defies such knee-jerk ideas about the essence of libertarianism. We believe in private markets, but those supported by effective regulation and strong governmental enforcement. Far from advocating for privatization of every industry, we recognize the value in gradual reform. And perhaps most importantly, we are the only libertarian organization to completely distance itself from Ayn Rand, her Ayn Rand Institute, Objectivism, and anarcho-capitalist thought in general.
Art and politics don’t mix
While we immensely respect Miss Rand's successful introduction of libertarian ideas to the thoughts of many people, we believe that her philosophy not only underdeveloped, but that it must be multilaterally rejected in order for libertarianism to become widely respected.
As entertainment, certainly, her books are effective at illustrating the oft-ignored benefits of free markets. She successfully glorifies in popular fiction what we try to argue from economics and history. Naturally, we pay great respect to the service she has performed in this context.
But letting the art-form of her novels dictate the libertarian political platform is on the level of letting Michael Moore’s cinematography dictate the Democratic Party platform. As Mr. Moore can effectively engage some moviegoers into voting for Democrats, likewise, Miss Rand can effectively inspire some college students to adopt libertarianism. Neither matters much for public policy or the legitimate political debate.
It is the regard for Ms. Rand’s work at a level any higher than mere entertainment that we find inappropriate. We’d say, Thanks for the nice stories, Ayn, now would you kindly leave the discussion of public policy to the professionals?
Shrugging off Atlas
William F. Buckley, to his credit, recognized this. It was his passionate criticism of her work, even while they were both pro-market, that separated them, drove Mr. Buckley’s conservatives to prominence and legitimacy, and thankfully resigned Objectivism to the lonely back-alleys of extremist political thought. Unfortunately, it met libertarianism in the same alley.
Clearly, for libertarianism to be publicly successful, a similar divestiture must be made. The perceived synonymity, among the elites and the public, of libertarianism and Objectivism must be forever reversed.
Despite Miss Rand's own assertions that she was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, her reception within the philosophic and political community has been far less enthusiastic. From Objectivism's ephemeral apogee of popularity in the 1950s, it has, for several good reasons to be discussed in this editorial, since failed to make any dent in the structures of respected thought.
The shortcomings of the philosophy, however, are completely lost on the evangelists at the Ayn Rand Institute. The institute entertains perpetual delusions of political relevancy, even offering a large MediaLink section on its website, as if American cable news shows desired a guest to come and extol the virtues of human greed and selfishness.
There is a good reason Miss Rand’s main points, especially her core assertion of the universal morality of capitalism, are widely ridiculed and ignored.
The market made me do it
Contrary to her infamous assertions, the free market is not implicitly moral. Nor is it, as claim the socialists, immoral. It is amoral. It merely reflects the preferences of its participants, whatever they may be. It can be corrupt when unctuous Enron executives happen to be releasing financial information, or it can be humanitarian when Warren Buffet happens to be allocating his charitable contributions. It can be sinfully hedonistic when it is selling porn and amazingly heroic when it is developing innovative cancer medication. And depending on whether you are watching cable TV or going to church, it can be either undermining or strengthening America’s “moral fabric.”
Blaming the market for immorality is as foolish as crediting it for morality. Societies, much of the time, don’t like owning up to their own shortcomings so they blame the market. This type of foolishness is called socialism.
Yet despite the failings of socialism, to argue that any form of perfection is found in the free market, as Miss Rand and other anarcho-libertarians do, is to attempt the impossible. There will always be dirty bastards injecting corruption, selfishness and dishonesty into the markets of the world. But we have no interest or need to defend them any more than the socialist wants to defend, for example, Che Guevara’s well-documented affinity for brutally executing political prisoners. Can we get over it already?
Good ideas have proof
PI, to its credit, sees the market as generally superior, not from some a priori philosophical syllogism, but from the observation of the costs and benefits of capitalism over the past few thousand years. Would those who complain about technology really wish for a life without penicillin, or without vaccines? Would those who complain about globalization really long for the agrarian lifestyle when food cost nearly half of a family’s income?
The IMF, OECD, and World Bank are among several well-respected pro-market organizations who have advocated for well-regulated markets and escaped the public tarring of being linked with Randian capitalism and other free-market evils. In journalism, similar respect is given to The Economist and the Financial Times. Like them, it is from the tradition of progress and development that we support free markets, not from a philosophy of anarchy.
All pro-market advocates should heed the world’s criticisms of free markets and address them in context. This is much more effective for the position than the Rand Approach, that is, ignoring them and citing some abstract theory of indisputable market superiority.
We err on the side of the market because evidence and experience dictate the general superiority of the private sector, to cheaply and efficiently provide nearly all goods and services, and to deliver the well-documented benefits of sustained economic growth.
However, we also know that markets fail, welfare is desirable, regulation can be beneficial, taxes are necessary and useful, and private corporations often behave abysmally. While we are proud to be among the first libertarians to publicly recognize these realities, we are distressed that they have not been widely recognized sooner.
I was just following orders, Miss Rand
Unlike Objectivists, true libertarians should harbor no delusions about markets or the individuals who operate within them. A good example of such a delusion is the core Objectivist position that human behavior is invariably rational, individual, and self-interested.
As for the first, anyone who has been in love, pursued a crazy idea, felt superstitious, or otherwise indulged their emotional whims knows how blissful and beneficial a release from maximized rationality can be. In economics, this phenomenon is known as irrational choice theory, and is highly persuasive. The idea that reason always governs human behavior denies these occurrences, often the best in life.
Individualism is no more permanent. Both fascism, where public opinion has paralyzed individual will, and a sold-out college football game, where crowds act as a collective, are common examples of cases where one’s individualism can be swiftly replaced with the collective will. These psychological realities falsify a core Objectivst assumption.
Despite what Miss Rand says, certain people will make irrationally stupid decisions in the market. The socialists seize on this, ironically, as proof that markets encourage irrationality. Wrong. The people making irrationally stupid decisions in the market are the people who make irrationally stupid decisions in general, and it’s a bit foolish to blame their own naivete on the market.
No matter what, businessmen will defraud and politicians will swindle. So what shall we do with this reality? Should we reject both government and private enterprise do to their imperfections, or should we reason like adults and advocate the superior imperfect system?
Something new
Our recognition of the shortcomings of the market are why PI is a purveyor of a ground-breaking libertarianism. It uniquely and passionately supports strong and effective regulation, taxation, and state oversight. Gone from our writing is the old-fashioned libertarian anti-statism that held that all state intervention is inherently evil.
The true believers of the Objectivist cult will continue to happily espouse their doctrine. However, until we libertarians finally leave them alone to recite their crusty hymnals of anarcho-capitalism, we will continue to be frustrated by libertarianism’s continued failure to develop any meaningful level of public respect.
The above work is the opinion of The Prometheus Institute.
Less on politics | If you didn't like this work, you might like instead:
Little Green Reasoning Good ideas for the environment - an inconvenient truth, maybe?
More from the editors | If you like this editorial, you might also like: Give Up The value of political apathy and disengagement
