Objectivism remains one of my pet peeves. I meet and cross swords with many who are beguiled with this particularly noxious dogma. From the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature this post details yet another Randian disciple waking up and choosing reality instead of “rationality”.
Greenspan’s breaking away from Objectivism. In his autobiography, The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan explains why he stopped being an orthodox acolyte of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy:
Like any new convert, I tended to frame the concepts [of Rand’s philosophy] in their starkest, simplest terms. Most everyone sees the simple outline of an idea before complexity and qualification set in…. It was only as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge that the fervor receded.
One such contradiction I found particularly enlightening. According to the objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individuals’ rights through police power? The Randian answer, that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily, was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?…
I still found the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition compelling, as I do to this day, but I reluctantly began to realize that if there were qualifications to my intellectual edifice, I couldn’t argue that others should readily accept it. By the time I joined Richard Nixon’s campaign for the presidency in 1968, I had long since decided to engage in efforts to advance free-market capitalism as an insider, rather than as a critical pamphleteer.
Greenspan here admits what has been suspected for some time: that he came to believe that Objectivism was flawed and so ceased being an orthodox advocate of Rand’s philosophy.
Not really surprising, but thanks Alan, for fueling the latest bust in a run-away neoliberal capitalist dream we’ve all been participating in as of late.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
9 comments
December 9, 2009 at 8:53 am
Robert Taylor
It doesn’t take a great deal of perspicatiousness to know that Greenspan gave in to power lust and decided to pursue that rather than objective truth. Power over other people via force or faith changes many people….he is a perfect example.
LikeLike
December 10, 2009 at 11:18 am
The Arbourist
It may be that Mr.Greenspan was in a vulnerable position as he did have access to significant amounts of power. However, as he points out, the set of rules he attempted to live helped skew his perceptions.
I would propose that objectivism encourages this outlook and then when the reality of the situation sets in, the people who must withdraw from previously held positions, are then blamed for their lack of orthodoxy and shunned.
Rand was infamous for turning on her disciples for their wrongheaded thinking. But looking at it issue, when does the dogma become the reason for problems rather than the people who practice it?
It seems we draw that line at different locations on the spectrum of how we evaluate objectivism.
LikeLike
December 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Moe
You no doubt know the cliche:
“Conservatives are liberals who’ve been mugged by reality.”
What’s a Randian who’s been mugged by realilty?
And how is it possible that there are Randians over age 20 who are not viewed as are 30-year old Trekkers who have Enterprise uniforms in their closets and live in their parents’ basements?
LikeLike
December 13, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The Arbourist
I’m not sure Moe, but the prevalence of self-identified objectivists/libertarians seems to have increased. I wonder if it is a case of the rats leaving the sinking ship of the particular brand of Conservatism the Republicans recently imploded with in the last US election.
Although if this is true, it is changing from one brand of fail to another.
I think the Lib/obj platform is a much more pernicious politic to embrace. Libertarianism/objectivism is even at greater odds with reality than the strident social conservatism that paradoxically endorsed snuggling with the oligarchy, while stripping minorities of their rights.
LikeLike
December 13, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Moe
Libertarians, objectivists – they are indeed living in a fantasy world of idealistic nonsense. I think this emerging wing of the Republican right here (and I agree with you, their numbers appear to be increasing) is going to tear apart what’s left of that party.
They’ll be powerless for years to come. (Please, please, please.)
For my money, as bad as Bush was, it was the matter of Terri Schiavo that finally caused most of the US to turn away from the Republican party in revulsion. I also think it was the beginning of the end of the dominance of the religious right in this country. It’s not all that visible yet, but their armor was cracked good with that one. Most of the congressional activists from that circus are now out of office.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 7:00 am
Robert Taylor
The bottom-line truth of it all is that power does corrupt as history proves over and over again. Just because at one time he was an acolyte of Rand doesn’t guaranty that he remains so in the future.
His failure is one of moral resoluteness…to stick by his core beliefs and not be swayed by money and power. That’s not unusual or unique with mankind.
He allowed his emotions to overtake his intellect and when push came to shove he yielded to money and power lust…a total lack of integrity…but very common as I’ve said above.
He then fails to connect the dots as to what caused the financial crisis by examining the relationship between bad mortgage loans (urged by the govt., mainly FNMA and FDMC). The dots then led to credit/risk swaps, derivatives which went worldwide. The corrupt politicans like Frank and Dodd granting their boon to the whole process despite warnings of others.
To try to equate the moral failure of Greenspan with, ergo, a failure of laissez-faire capitalism is incredulous and very, very, very shortsided.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 7:05 am
Robert Taylor
As a 63 year old Objectivist and a retiree from an industry I was in for 34 years I can personally verify that I’ve never had a “basement” to live in and though in the past I did enjoy the science fiction of Star Trek I’ve never had the urge to attend one of their silly conventions.
To reduce Objectivism to such silly remarks reflects the probable inclinations of the writer…not his subject matter.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 7:15 am
Robert Taylor
You either have a very short memory span or you enjoy purposely twisting facts. Where is an example of an Objectivist or libertarian who was siding with Hannity or Fox to the matter of Terri Schiavo? And, how do you connect a libertarian or Objectivist NECESSARILY with the G.O.P.? I may have to vote for the G.O.P. in a particular election as the lesser of two evils because the Democrat Party nominates such dimwitted, unfocused nimwits that are even worse.
As far as I’m concerned, the religious right is a very shallow, non-intellectual segment of the G.O.P. with their abortion litmus test and claiming that our natural rights qua mankind are derived from a god and the Bible, when in fact the Bible nowhere recognizes man’s rights. It only gives commandments and regulations to be obeyed.
LikeLike
February 7, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Moe
[And, how do you connect a libertarian or Objectivist NECESSARILY with the G.O.P.?]
I know they stand apart from both parties, but when they do identify it’s more naturally with Republicans. It’s the anti Big Government sentiment that makes them somewhat brothers in arms. And that sentiment is core to all three groups.
The Terri Schiavo ref was convoluted I know. I was saying that the libertarian strain was weakening the GOP in the eyes of the electorate – and that the GOP had already been greatly weakened by things like Terri Schiavo. Didn’t mean to connect the two – it was a narrative only. Ditto on the religious right stuff. I think all of that has weakened the GOP. THey had a ball with it while it lasted – moral superiority and all – but it was so hollow and is now so tired.
Like many in my generation, I was a Randian in college. The idealism was so romantic – the idea of superman so seductive.
You and I are about the same age Robert (actually, I’m older) and we apparently share Star Trek (no conventions for me either) and Ayn Rand, an attraction that wore off for me by the time I finished college. But I believe Randians are idealists, which is fine, but I don’t think that idealism has a place in governing. To govern – or even to lead – requires acknowledgment of human nature. And I don’t think idealism gets you there.
(The new(ish) Star Trek movie is terrific. If you haven’t seen it, try to.)
LikeLike