FEE: Ayn Rand Predicts its Intellectual Bankruptcy
FEE or the Foundation for Economic Education has proven to be intellectually bankrupt. For instance, their position against patents and Intellectual property shows that they do not understand property rights or rights generally. They also revere the work of the philosopher David Hume, who argued “cause and effect” does not exist, induction is just correlation, and that a rational ethics is not possible (the so-called is-ought problem). This means that Hume undermined reason, science and ethics. Despite this FEE thinks Hume is a great guy. FEE also promotes Matt Ridley who denigrates human achievement in science and engineering, calling Nobel Laurites in science and inventors frauds, for more click here.
Capitalism is moral if one wants to morally achieve one's ends and be truly successful "as a consequence". [as she states, morality is not the goal]-[to create and succeed is the goal]
This quote struck me truly.
"The root of the whole modern disaster is philosophical and moral. People are not embracing collectivism because they have accepted bad economics. They are accepting bad economics because they have embraced collectivism. You cannot reverse cause and effect. And you cannot destroy the cause by lighting the effect. That is as futile as trying to eliminate the symptoms of a disease without attacking its germs."
Modern ("millennial") conservatism would be hard to typify except by statistical summaries of minority aggregates. I mean, for instance, the fact that many Tea Party members believe that social security and Medicare are good programs - because they get the benefits, or look forward to them. Some conservatives are "pro-life" themselves but say that they would not interfere with another woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. To me, that is a contradiction. The morass of immigration and security issues that cannot be resolved by self-identified "conservatives" stems from the fact that reality and reason and missing from the debate. They never get down to first principles.
I agree that many (most?) self-identified "conservatives" probably do hold to altruistic morality and ethics. But, as OldUglyCarl pointed out, many do not.
You question "conservatives as do-gooders." I do not know how old you are, but in my lifetime, Ayn Rand's philosophy has become a strong force within conservatism. You know that she was (and is) reviled in National Review, for instance. Nonetheless, whereas the "me-too" conservatives of the 40s and 50s embraced mere tradition, now "me-too" conservatives grab for various elements of Objectivism, though without admitted the entire truth. The spineless politician Paul Ryan is an example of that. He bragged about requiring his staff to read Atlas Shrugged.
He was not alone in that. The Bush-Obama Bailouts pretty much shot Atlas Shrugged in book and film to the top of the cultural news of the day.
So, ever since the "Reagan Revolution" many conservatives have become less squeamish about promoting self-interest. It is a strong current. Even so, many also are social conservatives who endorse the ethics of church and community service as primary virtues.
This is starkest in matters of sexual morality (or immorality, if you will). It is least open to discussion concerning killing the unborn. A less contentious issue is the failed "war on drugs." But you still find many "law-and-order" conservatives who want to "stop the drug trade."
That last issue differentiates libertarians from Objectivists. There, the issue is not whether or not they should be legal, but whether or not you should use them - and why people do. Libertarians end the debate with legalization. They are intellectually incapable of addressing the causes of drug use.
Rand was definitely one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Her logic can not be disputed.
I am not a laissez-faire economist---you all know that. But you notice Rand did not mention in this letter how best to use the study of economics to promote individualism. She even once admitted she was not an economist.
In this case, we could begin with the established fact that capitalism is a superior mode of production, abundance, and social good - childhood longevity, creature comforts, knowledge - and then look at why. Sometimes FEE does that. Occasionally, they publish essays on the morality of individualism, even extending down into the ethics of epistemology: you have no right to force me to contradict the evidence of my senses (granted that much of that goes on in the mind).
A friend of mine who retired as a successful businessman (which I am not), said that in a world of laissez faire, economics would be a branch of accounting... and not much more...
(I do not know what you mean by your not being a laissez faire economist. Do you believe that some government controls of production and trade are necessary?)
I can say this:
I believe in the protection of property rights, and that extends to property "owned" by shareholders
There is more than that, of course.
Did you see my topic "The Most Dangerous Game" ? That might explain what I mean.
As you know, Greenspan also read Rand, yet was Fed chief for many years.
I designate myself a "loose" Monetarist. But that is only a partial description.
Also don't believe she believed that either.
Answer: None. They all stand around and wait for the Invisible Hand to do it.
Don't get the idea I am a Keynesian economist from that post.
Instead of my explaining again why I believe she felt all businessmen made sound business decisions, maybe you can tell me where she ever said otherwise.
Unfortunately, there are no schools or sciences of economics that are right or consistent with Objectivism. I have developed one. My book Source of Economic Growth lays the foundation and I have a series of blog posts under the tag of "intellectual capitalism" that explain other aspects.
Only this; America will not be taking the leadership role in those improvements.
And of course she couldn't talk about the science of economics as she had no training in it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I sometimes feel that Objectivists take everything Rand has said or written as Gospel truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-V_HK...
For example, the course title of the master's class I took in global macroeconomics was "International Finance", the professor explaining it was a "pragmatic approach to global macroeconomic theory". A very intelligent friend of mine told me that that had to be an oxymoron.
I was referring to "intellectual capital", not intellectual capitalism, a phrase which seems meaningless to me.
Before we commence an argument, we should define terms. For instance, you probably have a different interpretation of what a "sound business decision" is, than I do.
For example, running a business into the ground in order to either achieve rapid growth or perhaps "gut" the company, is not "sound". (Look up Billy Durant and the history of General Motors. Generally speaking shareholders, the actual owners of corporate property, should want to protect their rights, but rarely do. I would consider this a countervailing power to control by a directorate.)
John D. Rockefeller's "business practices" were neither "sound" nor moral, and resulted in MORE government regulation, not less.
Credit Mobilier of America, again, was neither "sound" nor moral.
Bernie Madoff was not interested in playing a game; he was a crook, pure and simple.
Can you give me a brief precis of your book, "Source of Economic Growth"?
Then we can establish "rules of argument".
I was a large commercial property and casualty insurance underwriter at one time; I started in a small mutual insurance company, then worked for AIG, in their commerce and industry wing. So I not only studied insurance, I also had hands-on experience.
At any rate, the case is that market forces don't ALWAYS work.
I understood business, in ways probably that Rand herself never could.
Patent and copyright regulations wouldn't exist if there were market forces regulating them.
By what standard? What does that even mean?
Reminds me of a conversation I had with an eminent physicist, and I asked "What is a quantum mechanical event anyway?" So he says, "Well, we don't really know that, Carol."
What do you mean by market forces don't always work? By what standard?
Once Liberalism becomes a dead idiotology, then we can start using "reason" in place of "feeling" to attempt adjustments.
I think that "laws" protect basic rights and provide remedies, whereas "regulations" help to make things run smoother.
Maybe someone can start a thread on that topic.
If you are talking about smoother for the controllers.
But I really have to go now.
Law is "lex" in Latin; regulations come from the Latin word for king---"rex", so are arbitrary and vary over time.
I'm pretty sure that those concepts are in the forefront of legal thought at this very time. Mainly because of computer programming and its development of intellectual capital. Compare Linux (free and open source software---had to look up that "concept formation") to Microsoft. And every shade of "property right" in between.
A quote from Alice in wonderland.
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
Capitalism, to work effectively, depends on man's competitive nature, which in turn is connected to that risk-taking attribute of man, and those are good things, without which there could not be evolution at all. But as in all those attributes of man's nature, it can be taken to an extreme. Humans sometimes aren't even aware of that fact of human nature. But as I said, I'll be thinking about that going forward.
Anyway, did you read my topic: "The Most Dangerous Game"? It is not greed that becomes obsessive, it is playing the "game". Becoming aware of that is a good first step.
Look at it this way: Not even God can make all the people happy AND simultaneously.
Risk-taking and competition are the means man uses to achieve goals, or objects, and are as important to him in his goal-seeking behavior, as the object itself.
You may not understand completely the nature of addiction, in so far as it becomes tied to man's competitive and risk-taking nature. Gambling is an addiction to a certain type of risk-taking. Power has a use and power-seeking is a driving force in man's nature, but it can become an addiction, and I still need to explicate the nature of that addiction further. Neurologically, addicts are said to be "chasing that high", but can never find it.
Where did you learn about human nature, kh?
See the topic I started: "Countervailing Powers", for help.
I'm looking at a "right" as an achievable and praiseworthy goal. It is related to individualism, or the individual ability to attain "that which is necessary for a full life.,"
The reason they do not have those rights, is because those "rights" endanger others, or society at large.
I am saying "right" IS the object, not the right TO an object.
She in no way contradicts me: a right to action, then is the "object" required to carry out that action.
I have no idea how you can possibly assume I am confusing capitalism with anarchism, simply because I stated that market forces do not always work as inherent regulators.
The root of Marxism stems from the Catholic failure of moral clarity when it came to lending capital with interest.
Marx , a Jewish convert to Catholicism, hated Capitalism because for almost 2,000 years the Catholic view was that engaging in usury, lending Capital with interest, is immoral. The Church, through the 10% mandatory tithe of all your assets. (read tax) would support the poor (but mostly itself, just like our government today) and be in control of all the dependents. Being poor became a virtue because it served the interests of the Church. Trades and guilds (unions) would flourish to protect scarce work and economies would stagnate as the Church siphoned off their wealth (Federal Reserve) . Only the Landed Aristocracy, Vassals of the Church and kings were rich enough to afford to engage in science. Hence the dark ages.
Needing capital to create business, such as buying a ship and goods to trade was necessary so the Church found an out. Let the Jews do it. They are devils and immoral anyway. Let the sin be on them and we will take advantage.
The Church decreed that Jews were abandoned by God to be downtrodden on earth and serve as a lesson to anyone who did not accept Jesus and the Church, The Torah, Pentatuach or Five books of Moses was demeaned as the "Old" testament and ignored.
Then once the Jewish capital created economic prosperity - Re-distribution, e.g. Stealing from the Jews (today called "the Rich") and giving to the Church (government) was considered noble.
Read Das Kapital on the Jewish question. Can someone who converts to Catholicism be considered to be a German Citizen? Marx answers, even a German is a Jew if he engages in Capitalism.
Not until Vatican II and Pope John Paul did this view officially change. Once this moral stigma of Dirty Jew is removed from Capitalism and the Nobleness from re-distribution (theft from the Dirty Jew) then we might get some clear thinking about Capitalism without the mixed messages. .
Shocked? Appalled that the world Collectivist/Socialist/Marxist culture is based on Jew hatred and Religious Doctrine based on the lust for control and power?
The truth is like that.
Roman Catholic and Islamic Religions had to demean the original religion of Israel to get converts away e.g. money, assets and women to make more soldiers to be used to conquer and get more money. control and power.
That is the moral (or immoral) basis that must be revealed and corrected to gain acceptance of capitalism instead of focusing just on economics.
I say that the patent system actually impedes innovation, in that an inventor now has to find out if the government will permit him to actually sell his invention before he even invests in completing it.
Not to mention that the system has produced a host of patent trolls, who just use the system to inhibit competition.
I understand that there is a large swamp which makes money on the patent system as it is, and which will defend it to the death. But I just dont buy the arguments that a 17 year government granted monopoly to the first person that applies to the government is fair at all.
You refuse to acknowledge independent invention which is the philosophical weak link in the property rights argument to the fruit of your own intellectual labor. Note, I am not saying simultaneous, simply independent.
DB much thanks for presenting this, I am going to send it to friends.
Is there any information as to what he might have answered her?
The hand waving of Rand and Peikoff about modern physics and other philosophers is pathetic.
Take a look at the much larger picture of what FEE stands for and you will find Objectivists will agree with 90% or more.
The incessant Objectivist attacks upon friends is, I think, one of the many reasons AS is a failing organization. CEO Grossman described the problem in her December 31 email: “This year at The Atlas Society, we faced facts: Fewer and fewer young people were reading Ayn Rand, membership was declining, revenues were down, and we were struggling to attract fresh faces to The Atlas Summit. As Objectivists, we needed to admit that the old way of doing things wasn’t going to produce the results we needed to achieve our goals of promoting the values of reason, achievement, individualism, liberty and ethical self-interest.”
FEE has those same goals of promoting the values of reason, achievement, individualism, liberty and ethical self-interest. This begs the question: with so many enemies around, why attack a friend?
So celebration Matt Ridley who thinks scientist, engineers, and inventors are frauds is not attacking reason?
You need to reevaluate what is attacking reason.
In any event, to me this is time wasted on counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin when there are much larger issues to confront. If you want to fight with FEE, go ahead. I doubt you will amount to a fly buzzing around its head. If you want to fight friends rather than “spread the word” through education of the multitude of people who have no idea what free enterprise, atheism, and liberty are, then enjoy the fight. But it is my opinion time is better spent on more enjoyable and profitable endeavors. In the meantime I bid you adieu, for I have some trivial things to do which are far more important.
Ridley is liar and denigrates human achievement. His argument is that no one inventor is important, it is a societal effort. That is epistemological collectivism and that is as bad or worse that political collectivism
I believe that the reason for FEE's continued good works is that most people have limited interests. We all sort input through filters of understanding. Economics is easy to understand if only because gold coins are tangible. You can reduce economic arguments to Robinson Crusoe.
On the other hand, philosophy requires broad and deep conceptual thinking across the fullest range of your knowledge. Just for instance, when I last read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology I questioned what I read against everything I know. My only limit was my own range of knowledge.
With economics, it all comes down to measures that we have in our hands. Economics does have "philosophical" arguments. In my last Econ 101 class (2006), on the first day the prof - a good market guy, but not laissez faire - disabused the class on the notion that there is a "fair" or "absolute" price. "Would you give up a dollar to get a quarter? What if you had to make a phone call and the only way to do that was with a pay phone?" So, again, the philosophical issue of "value" came down to everyday measurables.
Philosophy is more abstract than that.
And, if I may, I point out that if you are an economist, you can say that with a straight face. Tell people that you are a philosopher and they will look at your shoes to see if they are tied because you just said that you are not capable of doing it.
We can discuss whether non-aggression is a "principle." I suggest that is not a principle of ethics; it is of politics.
(By analogy, the Pythagorean theorem, which is complicated and dependent on much, is accepted as a basic principle (an "axiom" as I was taught it) of Cartesian Geometry. Similarly, the First Amendment could be a principle of government, because if instantiated in classical Athens, it would have been revolutionary: they lacked that principle, following instead the principle of majority rule. We know that the First Amendment rests on more basic truths of ethics.)
In any case, while I agree that NIOF is necessary but insufficient for a new culture based on reason, I am not loathe to accepting socially those who endorse it.