Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard: The Verdict after Fifty Years

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. What I will be discussing in my talk today is the crucial role that the ideas of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have played in the defense of liberty and Western civilization.

All Americans, well read in political affairs, know of these famous thinkers. They were two of the most powerful and revolutionary intellectuals in the 20th century, contributing many valuable insights to our knowledge of philosophy, politics, and economics. As with most intellectual rebels, their major ideas about freedom and government were highly controversial. What I will do in this talk is explain what these controversies are, demonstrating the wisdom and folly of their ideas. As to which is the more prevalent, wisdom or folly, stay tuned.

I will also explain a new way for libertarians and conservatives to look at the political spectrum and the egoism-altruism clash that Ayn Rand promoted so dramatically. This will be done by using the Greek philosopher Aristotle's famous Doctrine of the Mean and applying it on the macro-level instead of just the micro-level.

In doing so, I hope I can alert you to the immense importance of Aristotle to the cause of freedom and how his philosophical approach compares to that of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.

Why is this so important? Because freedom has always been a fragile orchid in a jungle of rapacious ideologies bent on snuffing its presence out. Freedom requires rational, irrefutable thought to be won and maintained. If we have built our defense of freedom upon a false philosophy with faulty premises, then we are fighting in vain. Read more: http://afr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Rand-Rothbard-Speech.pdf

"...No, she pretty much painted anyone who did anything to help others as suckers..."

Ummm, beg to differ. Earlier I paraphrased what I took her position to be, so here I will post her own words, with an emphasis added to show where what she said was essentially what I posted:

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance."

"To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such."

So, again, I submit that a lot of people (here and elsewhere) mis-represent her actual views on charity and giving assistance to others.

That last paragraph puts four criteria on when it’s okay for me to give. I don’t need the goddess Rand to tell me how to spend my money.

I give to whomever and whatever I want, whenever I want for whatever reason I want because I made the money and it’s none of her or your *#(@*% business what I do with it.

That’s freedom, FYI, not some fake thing where I have to PROVE my reasoning for exercising my rights to some commissar.

"...I give to whomever and whatever I want, whenever I want for whatever reason I want because I made the money and it’s none of her or your *#(@*% business what I do with it..."

You are making her point EXACTLY.

At no point did you say "I MUST give because I am OBLIGATED to."

You have articulated her position with precision. You might come back and try to amend your position by saying you give from what you feel is an obligation, but in your initial, base reaction, your point is hers exactly.

Consider how much more you could do if you hadn't been taxed on your income in order to pay for someone else's idea of charity!

Let me modify your statement and I will completely agree with your position...

I give to whomever and whatever I want, whenever I want for whatever reason I want because I made the money and it’s none of her or your or the governments *#(@*% business what I do with it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.