Another Empty Slap at Ayn Rand

In an otherwise interesting analysis of the evolving Tea Party Movement, Doyle McManus throws out this cheap shot:

"Tea party candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky have both derided the unemployed as victims of their own laziness, a position that doesn't play well beyond the Ayn Rand right."

The utter disregard for the truth readily on display by the Anti-Ayn Rand Cult is tiresome, but I fired off this rebuttal anyway:

MikeZemack wrote on 07/28/2010 07:54:45 PM:

Where is the evidence that Ayn Rand ever endorsed a shallow, generalized viewpoint that “derided the unemployed as victims of their own laziness”? As a committed Objectivist, I could tell you that there isn’t any. It looks like a bit of guilt by association going on here. While laziness might be true of some of today’s unemployed, including the idle rich whom she disdained, Ayn Rand would have rightly viewed most as victims of disastrous government policies, although she would not hold them totally blameless if they supported the policies that led to their unemployment. She was a true champion of the middle class, which she viewed as “a country’s motor and lifeblood”.

As to “the Ayn Rand right”, there isn’t any. Today’s American right is dominated by the Christian conservatives and to a lessor extent the libertarians, both of whom stand philosophically opposed to Objectivism’s most important metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical essentials. It’s true that many on the right will wave the Ayn Rand banner when it suits them, cherry picking isolated out-of-context bits and pieces of her idea system. But you will learn little about her thinking by paying attention to Angle or Paul.

As to Mr. McManus and his ilk, ad hominem and straw man tactics are common methods of attacking Ayn Rand, because they dare not confront her ideas openly and honestly. This sort of empty, backhand slap at Ayn Rand is typical of those who simply can’t refute her ideas.

Some Fairness Toward Ayn Rand, From an Unlikely Source

The liberal Huffington Post, of all places, has published a relatively fair-minded piece on Ayn Rand, entitled The Real Rogue Warrior: Ayn Rand, Not Sarah Palin, by Michael Shermer. Here are a few excerpts:

"Despite the media frenzy surrounding Sarah Palin's autobiographical Going Rogue, the real rogue warrior making a political conservative comeback today is not Palin, but the Russian immigrant turned champion of American conservative principles, Ayn Rand.

"You can no more understand the right without Rand than you can understand it without Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan. The dismissal of Rand by both the left and the right as mind candy for college kids is fatuous. It may be true that many of us (myself included) were first introduced to Rand in college, but that's when most of us are introduced to most of the philosophical and literary figures in history. So what?

"What are Rand's principles and which of her books should you read to understand the modern conservative movement? Start with Atlas Shrugged. According to a survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month club, readers ranked it #2 behind the Bible as the most influential book they had ever read. It is a murder mystery, not about the murder of a human body, but of the murder of the human spirit."

I addressed, in my comments below, Mr. Shermer's erroneous (in my view) contention that modern conservatism is a good surrogate for Ayn Rand's ideas. Though he did his best, Mr. Shermer doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of the many fundamental differences between Objectivism and conservatism. There are, too be sure, many areas of agreement, as well, especially in economics (although few, if any, conservatives would embrace full laissez-faire capitalism, or the separation of state and economics). That she is decribed as making a "political conservative comeback" is an indication of how much must still be learned about her.

There are some other errors in this piece, such as this quote from Burns:

"Rand intended her books to be a sort of scripture, and for all her emphasis on reason it is the emotional and psychological sides of her novels that make them timeless."

"Scripture" is an odd, and utterly wrong, description of a philosophy that has as a prime fundamental tenet to think for yourself.

Her books do have powerful emotional appeal, but if that is mainly what one gets out of her writing, then you're likely to ... as they say ... "outgrow Ayn Rand".

All in all, though, this is a decent piece that captures the the reason for Ayn Rand's enduring relevance.

Here are my brief comments:

Thank you, Mr. Shermer, for a pretty good article, although the appropriate term to describe Ayn Rand is not rogue, but radical. You make a crucial point all too often forgotten: “Criticism of the founder of a theory does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the theory.” I agree that Sarah Palin (who I am not a fan of) cannot hold a candle to Ayn Rand.

It should be pointed out that many people of various political persuasions in what today passes for the American "Right" - from conservative to libertarian to Republican to "Tea Partyers" - cherry-pick aspects of Rand’s ideas for their own purposes, while ignoring the rich depth of her comprehensive philosophy. Also, a large swath of American Conservatism abhors Ayn Rand for her secularism, social “liberalism”, and the challenge she hurls at Judeo-Christian morality through her ethics of rational self-interest.

You’ll learn little about Objectivism (Rand’s philosophy) by listening to conservatives. So, take some advice from an Objectivist husband, father, and grandfather who never “outgrew” Ayn Rand. If you’re seriously interested in understanding Rand’s enduring appeal, you’ll just have to study her works yourself, and exercise a cardinal virtue of the Objectivist ethics – your own independent judgement.

Ayn Rand Misrepresentations @ Wake Forest

A sophomore at Wake Forest University has published an article in the campus newspaper entitled Objectivism conflicts with humanitarian spirit. The author, Matt Moran, dives headlong into a criticism which conflicts with the truth about Objectivism. He then engages in a lengthy dialogue with correspondents in the comments section, though he ignores mine. He repeats every conceivable argument for socialism and tyranny one can think of.

Mr. Moran is clearly a Marxist and a collectivist. He makes many false claims about what Ayn Rand allegedly stood for, such as that she “exhibits a worship of … corporations”, “envisions, unregulated corporate capitalism” (as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism), and “glorif[ies] the wealthy and show[s] contempt for the poor”.

Politically, Mr. Moran is an unabashed statist. He advocates pure tyranny, in the form of democracy: “I consider a moral social system to be a system which benefits the majority.” If the majority benefits from the enslavement of a racial minority, as in the pre-Civil War south, that presumably is all right.

At one point, he declares that the “government (i.e. not a dictatorship) as the tool of a society, reserves the right to tax people to fulfill other social needs and goals.” The contradictions in that statement are obvious.

On what basis does government have a “right” to redistribute anyone’s property and earnings to others? What about the rights of the individual victims of government confiscation? It’s either/or. Either individuals possess rights that are protected by government, or the government has the “right” to do whatever “society” pleases, at the behest of whatever voting block happens to seize control of the “tool” of state. Either a country is free, it is a dictatorship, or it is an unstable mixture of freedom and dictatorship (a mixed economy).

And in another comment: “If you don’t (sic) want welfare to exist, …the poor will either die or work bad jobs for bad money.” In other words, the “poor” are incapable of improving their own lives in a social setting of individual freedom. So, they must be enslaved to a benevolent socialist dictatorship “where survival and basic goods are guaranteed [by whom?]" so they can achieve “the maximization of creative potential[!]”. This society of slaves, slave masters, and profiteers on slavery represents freedom, and humanitarian concern for the poor! One cannot imagine a more contemptible example of “contempt for the poor”.

Mr. Moran’s comments are full of moral equivocations and relativism, floating abstractions (ideas disconnected from reality), rebellions against nature, anti-concepts, context-dropping, etc., etc., etc. I’ve given just a few examples. Other correspondents have called him on many of his absurdities.

Objectivism, of course, is the only intellectual force that defends both the political and moral rights of the individual to his own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of his own goals, values, and happiness from all human predators.

And this conflicts with the humanitarian spirit! Freedom is Slavery!


Here is my commentary, taking Matt Moran to task on one of his points:

Mike Zemack October 11, 2009 5:19 pm

By focusing in on Ragnar Danneskjold, the pirate character in Atlas Shrugged, Matt Moran reveals himself to be less than honest. He writes:

“Among the more impactful quotes in Atlas is the manifesto of a pirate named Ragner Danneskjold.

“This Dane steals from government ships in order to refund the taxes of wealthy individuals and states.

“Somewhere in one of Rand’s many sanctimonious speeches, Danneskjold steals from the undeserving poor and gives to the deserving rich’ in a sick twist of the Robin Hood story. This is, I kid you not, an action that Objectivism celebrates. Normally I would find it refreshing to listen to someone who thinks Americans are not selfish enough.

“However, I consider Objectivism and other philosophies that glorify the wealthy and show contempt for the poor to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant constant opposition.”

Mr. Moran is getting sloppy here. The encounter between Danneskjold and Reardon takes up some 13 pages (572-584, 11th printing, 1957 addition), and nowhere do the words he quotes appear. If he actually read the book (which is doubtful) and wanted to accurately report on the meaning of Danneskjold’s character and purpose, he would have stated the exact quote and the context and full meaning of it. Here is the passage to which he probably refers, which appears “somewhere” on page 576, along with further selected excerpts from Danneskjold’s statement for context and understanding.

“I’m the man … who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.

“I have never robbed a private ship and never taken private property. Nor have I ever robbed a military vessel – because the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of a government. But I have seized every loot-carrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others…

“It is said that [Robin Hood] fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became the justification … for that foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal.”

If Mr. Moran were to present an accurate portrayal, he would realize that Rand is here upholding justice – that you deserve what you earned but not what you haven’t. Rand condemns not the poor, but the “thieving” poor who exist off of a lifetime of government handouts; not the rich but the productive rich. A full understanding makes it plain that – and this is one of the clear messages of the book – Rand is defending the property of any human being, on any economic level, who earns his own keep – and condemning all moochers, rich as well as poor, such as the wealthy parasites who are the villains in AS.

Rand also does not condemn charity as such, but coercive charity and the phonies – the “double-parasites” – who seek the unearned prestige of practicing “humanitarianism” with other peoples tax money under the “halo of virtue” called altruism. Altruism, as Rand has proven for anyone with the courage and independence to question the accepted “wisdom” of the ages, does not mean benevolence, good will, or true compassion. Instead, it is a moral code that enshrines the unearned as a moral absolute, thus fostering envy, the entitlement mentality, resentment of achievement, and predatory collectivism – cancers that are slowly consuming this country.

Mr. Moran’s article is riddled with inaccuracies and irrelevancies, belying his statement that “I have, to date, tortured my eyes with Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Anthem, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness.” I have addressed one of them. There’s nothing wrong with criticism, of course. Unfortunately, his criticism of Rand comes at us not from a standpoint of understanding, but from a somewhat Marxist narrative.

Objectivism stands up for every individual person’s right to his own life (rational selfishness), not the right to prey on others for his own ends. It is, first and foremost, a comprehensive set of philosophical principles to guide the individual in his personal endeavors and in his relationships with others. As such, Objectivism provides a moral defense of individualism, capitalism, and America’s founding ideals as laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Ayn Rand is, I firmly believe, America’s last Founding Father because of her philosophic achievement. I urge everyone to study Objectivism and decide for himself. I’m confident that he will learn that Objectivism is a truly humanitarian philosophy.

Gov. Mark Sanford on Atlas Shrugged

Here is a review of Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Entitled Atlas Hugged, Mr. Sanford's essay attempts to portray Atlas Shrugged positively but he exhibits quite a bit of ignorance in regards to the book and Ayn Rand's philosophy. He also challenges Rand in the area of ethics.

I have taken him to task on a few important points.

My commentary:

Rand’s belief in the “perfectibility” of man is based upon the rejection of the dominant moral code of history, and the discovery of the proper ethics consistent with man’s nature and the metaphysical facts of reality. Altruism enshrines the unearned, both in matter and in spirit, as a moral absolute. As long as self-sacrifice was held to be the ideal, man was destined to be seen as flawed and possessing original sin, because the code of self-sacrifice is inimical to life that must constantly be broken if one is to flourish. Rand did not believe men are infallible, but capable nonetheless of heroic accomplishments on any level of ability. She posited rational self-interest as the proper code to live by, thus freeing people to pursue a life of personal achievement, fulfillment, and happiness, within the context of mutual respect for each other and a peaceful and benevolent coexistence. What the past 10,000 years has proven is that mankind’s “flaw” was in his predatory moral code, not in his nature. This is an essential ethical message in Rand’s novels, which Mr. Sanford misses or ignores.

Galt's hidden valley is not “a perfect society”, but a private, voluntary association of people. It in no way means an advocacy of anarchy. Rand considered government to be a vital institution and a necessary good, without which brutality would reign, provided that it is constitutionally limited to the protection of individual rights.

Objectivism is primarily a philosophy of reason, and so naturally rejects faith (defined as the acceptance of ideas or beliefs without any evidence). But as a long time admirer and student of Ayn Rand - and as an Objectivist husband, father, and grandfather who lives by that philosophy – I can most emphatically say that in no way does Objectivism preclude grace, love or (voluntary) social compact. When people are free – and only when people are free – these values do not conflict with the individual’s pursuit of happiness, and are in fact a part of it.

These are just a few of the errors in this review. Though Mr. Sanford gets some things right, he does not seem very knowledgeable about Ayn Rand or Objectivism. I don’t know what this says about the books that he is reviewing here, since I have not read them myself. But I’d suggest that anyone interested in learning should read and study her novels and non-fiction works and judge for himself (which requires independent thinking, a cardinal virtue in the Objectivist ethical system).

Gillis on the Lessons of Atlas

David Gillis of St. Clair, a Times Herald community columnist, wrote a column comparing the business headlines to Atlas Shrugged, published 52 years ago.

The column is entitled "Rand's novel offers lessons for current economic crisis".

I posted the following brief comments, partly in response to other correspondents;

MikeZemack wrote:

Private business is the face of this crisis, but is NOT indicative of actual capitalism--the separation of economics and state. Private ownership can exist in non-capitalist systems, such as fascism. This crisis occurred in a heavily regulated industry, under a central bank money monopoly. There is the Federal Reserve, FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, mortgage guarantees, the CRA, the network of “affordable housing” policies, mandatory accounting rules, the state-licensed rating agency cartel’s AAA endorsement based upon implicit government guarantees, “to big to fail” bailout policies…etc., etc.

Rand correctly identified the corruptive nature of political interference in private economic decision-making, and the way in which the regulatory apparatus acts as the conduit. The government’s primary role in causing and exacerbating this crisis is impossible to dismiss. Those who blame “deregulation” or “unfettered markets” have no clue what capitalism is, and are not looking at the facts.

Businessweek Debate Room--2

The Economy Needs Ayn Rand

My Commentary:

Mike zemack
April 4, 2009 11:13 PM
It's hard to call this exchange a debate. If I were a serious opponent of Ayn Rand's ideas, I'd be ashamed to call Christina Patterson a representative of my side. Her hissing, uninformed tantrum is more reminiscent of a spoiled child than a worthy participant in Businessweek's "Debate Room."

The fact is, if Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism was dominant in American culture, there would have been no financial crisis.

Objectivism teaches how to live and advance one's life through one's own thinking and efforts, and through voluntary, non-predatory, rights-respecting, mutually advantageous association with one's fellow man. Its cardinal personal virtues include rationality, integrity, and honesty, among others. The consequence would be a benevolent capitalist society.

As a husband, father, and grandfather, I strongly urge anyone seeking a comprehensive guide to a virtuous, self-sustaining, happy life to study the works of philosopher Ayn Rand and Objectivist intellectuals like Onkar Ghate.

http://www.principledperspectives.blogspot.com/


Other's Commentary:

Barney Murrell
April 5, 2009 02:36 AM
All the pro-Rand commentators are ignorant of U.S. History, and/or lacking in morality. Today's economic failures are the result of two things: One, failure to recognize that most humans are greedy SOBs and run amok without oversight (remember prisons?) and two, implementation of deregulation legislation that ended with predictable results.

Same thing happened to S&Ls in the 1980s, thanks to Reagan’s deregulation and tax policies. The following Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation links explain the failures that helped bring about the S&L crisis:

The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

History of the 80s
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/

Also, what follows are links to photographic evidence of what results in an unregulated free market pre-Great Depression economy:

Child Labor (Ann would be proud of their “freedom” to work instead of going to school)
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/index.html

Earlier in the 1900s was Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” – about labor slavery and the filthy conditions under which American meat was processed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

“The Jungle” was the catalyst for Theodore Roosevelt’s implementation of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act_of_1906

And then there was the Great Depression

Children of the Great Depression
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm

Hoovervilles from American Memory
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/f?fsaall:0:./temp/~ammem_xPlK:

Hooverville: Shantytown of Seattle’s Great Depression
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=741

If there are any pro-Rand fans that still believe her ignorance is correct then you are one of those who may be aptly described as "greedy no-good SOBs." Just remember, it was the cannon fodder from the lower economic classes (victims of "free markets") that won America’s wars which made it possible for capitalism to exist and Rand to write.


My Commentary:

Barney Murrell offers not even a hint of a refutation of even a single principle of Objectivism.

Instead, he makes the claim that “most humans are greedy SOBs” incapable of freedom (including Mr. Murrell?). This is belied by the historical fact that rising general prosperity and (even relatively) free markets are inextricably linked corollaries (Ex., the contrast between North and South Korea), while central planning of all kinds inevitably leads to economic decline and poverty (example, the Hoovervilles and today’s unemployment statistics). His support of government regulation implies that a gun can impart wisdom and virtue into otherwise “greedy SOBs”. Give any “greedy SOB”, which he claims most humans are, a position of coercive police power over the lives of other men by making him a regulator automatically allows wisdom and omniscience to flow from the (metaphorical) gun in his hand into his selfless brain.

Humans are not evil by nature, but are rather in need of a rational, scientifically validated code of ethics to guide them in their lives and in their relationships with others. Objectivism provides that moral guidance. See the works of Ayn Rand or of Objectivist intellectuals Tara Smith (Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics, the Virtuous Egoist) and Craig Biddle (Loving Life, the Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. ).

The litany of horrors allegedly perpetrated by capitalism, such as slave labor and child labor, were legacies of pre-capitalist societies that capitalism inherited and eventually wiped out. The extraordinary advance in men’s economic well-being that occurred in the 19th century was unmatched by any century before or since, and enabled the creation of the American middle class. While terrible conditions did coincide with the rise of capitalism, they must be viewed in historical context…something that the enemies of capitalism routinely fail to provide. For a properly contextual viewpoint, see Andrew Bernstein’s The Capitalist Manifesto.

Every one of the 20th century disasters cited by Murrell were the result of government interference into the economy, not free people “running amok”. The S&L crisis and the (Hoover-Roosevelt) Great Depression are two irrefutable examples. The failure to understand the true causes of the S&L crisis helped pave the way for today’s financial calamity. See Richard M. Salsman of the American Institute for Economic Research (The Collapse of Deposit Insurance—and the Case for Abolition)and Amity Shlaes(The Forgotten Man—a New History of the Great Depression).

As for today’s crisis, listen to this lecture given by BB&T Chairman John Allison at:

Or visit The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and visit the special section detailing their response to the financial crisis.

Also read Richard M. Salsman's penetrating essay in the current issue of The Objective Standard.

Government regulation is inherently unjust, because it is based upon the un-American principle of presumption of guilt, whereby coercive control is extended over an entire industry because of the wrong-doing (or alleged wrong-doing) of the few. The establishment of the FDA (and its precursors) is a prime example. That its creation may have been supported by many in the pharmaceutical industry does not justify it. Can it ever be calculated how much suffering and premature death has been caused by the FDA, which routinely delays, prohibits, and discourages investments in medicines from entering the market? Fraudulent behavior of the few is dealt with by criminal law in a free, capitalist society. Prisons are for criminals, and criminals only. Placing controls on people or companies innocent of any wrong-doing is a form of pre-emptive law, which is consistent with dictatorship and is incompatible with a free, lawful society.

It’s not that “greedy SOBs” don’t exist in a free market. It’s that capitalism, which protects individual rights, works to their disadvantage. Honesty wins in a society based upon freedom of association. It is the political corruption of the private economy caused by coercive government interference in the free market that empowers and entrenches the “greedy SOBs” (Ex., Countrywide’s Mozilo and the GSEs).

I take particularly strong exception to Murrell’s degrading of our military personnel as mere “cannon fodder” incapable of appreciating and fighting for their own freedom. We owe an incalculable debt of gratitude to our fighting men and women, who by fighting for their own freedom and our American ideals, they protect the rights of us all…thus enabling Barney Murrell to freely advocate for tyranny and against America’s foremost defender of individual rights.

Commentary 51-Yaron Brook at Newsweek

Who Is To Blame?

Can Ayn Rand Survive the Economic Crisis?

By Barrett Sheridan | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Dec 10, 2008

It's not easy being Alan Greenspan these days. As the former Federal Reserve chairman, he urged government regulators to take a light touch while banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers buried themselves—and the economy more generally—under a mountain of debt. Now that his reputation is plummeting faster than the stock market, he's been forced to admit a "flaw" in his hands-off ideology.

Of course, things look entirely different to members of "free-market advocacy groups," as they like to be called. One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment and anti-regulation views are embodied in her best-selling novels "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Indeed, Greenspan himself was a friend of Rand's, and a devotee of her extreme free-market philosophy, known as Objectivism. NEWSWEEK's Barrett Sheridan spoke with the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook, about why he defends free markets while much of the rest of the world has turned away from them, and what he thinks of Greenspan today. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Lack of regulation is being blamed for our current crisis, and free markets are in disrepute. Has Objectivism been dealt a deathblow?
Yaron Brook: No, not at all. From a public-relations perspective, it's been hurt. But in the long term there will be a backlash against what's going on in the markets today—the heavy government involvement, the nationalizations and the move toward socialism. If the free-market advocacy groups position themselves correctly, they can benefit from it.

How can they do that?
What we need to do is really make the case to the American people—and I think it's an easy case to make—that this is not a failure of free markets, this is not a failure of capitalism, but this is a failure of the exact opposite. It's a failure of the regulatory state. It's a failure of all the government policies of the last eight years. Actually, the last 95 years.

Why do you say the last 95 years?
I believe that the No. 1 cause of the current crisis is Federal Reserve policy. [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.] The Federal Reserve, by necessity, creates economic problems; no matter how good a Federal Reserve chairman is, he's going to create cycles of booms and busts.

How did the Federal Reserve create today's mess?
The current crisis was caused by the housing bubble, and the primary cause of the housing bubble was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at 1 percent in 2003. They were asking people to borrow money, basically begging them. The financial problem we face today was a problem of overleverage, of too much debt—but that's exactly what Federal Reserve policy encouraged.

But during that time, the head of the Federal Reserve was Alan Greenspan, a close friend of Ayn Rand and the world's most famous Objectivist.
Yes. Alan Greenspan was quite close to Ayn Rand in the 1960s and 1970s. But from pretty early on, Greenspan was a part of economic policies that I don't think Ayn Rand would have approved of. Yes, he wanted less regulation, but he never talked about rolling back regulation. He never talked about significantly meaningful ways to cut spending, cut taxes. I believe he sold his soul to the devil. Power corrupts, and absolute power—which I think is what you have at the Federal Reserve—corrupts absolutely.

So it sounds like you're not bothered by his admission that he found a "flaw" in his "free-market ideology."
No, the only thing that bothers me is that the press took it to mean, "See, capitalism has failed, even according to this guru of capitalism." He was never a guru of capitalism! At least he hasn't been a guru of capitalism since the 1980s.

Do you have any contact with Greenspan?
No, I don't.

Have Objectivists largely disavowed him?
I think so, but I think he's disavowed us, as well, so it's mutual. I don't think he would have dinner with me if I asked.

What do you think of the various and numerous bailouts?
They're horrible. I think that the biggest mistake that was made was probably the bailout of Bear Stearns. I think they should have let Bear Stearns fail. The fact that everybody else now wants a bailout makes complete sense. Why bailout AIG and not General Motors? General Motors employs more people.

But scholars like Ben Bernanke, current head of the Federal Reserve, says one reason the Great Depression was so severe was that government waited three years before intervening, and let scores of banks fail before then.
Unfortunately, just because economists understand what caused the Great Depression doesn't mean they understand what needs to be done to prevent one. People today mistakenly think that FDR saved us from the Great Depression. But from 1932 until at least 1940, the U.S. was still in a depression. Government grew during the 1930s more than in any decade in history, and yet at the end of the 1930s, we still had more than 15 percent unemployment. So government growth and regulation is not a solution to a depression. I would argue it's the exact opposite.

What does that mean for the current situation?
Everything that [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson and Bernanke have done since day one of this crisis has made things worse, not better, if only because they have been so panicky and hysterical, and changed their minds so many times and offered so many different plans. The market has come to the conclusion that they have no idea what they're doing.

You want to do away with the Federal Reserve, but something that radical isn't going to happen, at least not anytime soon. In the meantime, wouldn't more regulation of the financial sector make sense?
No, I think quite the opposite—more financial regulation would be a disaster. Financial regulations created this mess. The Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—they're the institutions and proposals that got us into this. Regulators are not good at managing financial institutions. Think about the [savings and loan] crisis: the S&L industry was the most regulated industry in the United States. Did that stop the crisis from happening? No. Regulations don't prevent crises; they cause them.

But AIG's downfall was due largely to credit-default swaps.
There's nothing wrong with credit-default swaps. If they'd let AIG fold, we would have discovered that. There's been no problem with the credit-default swap-market to date. It's actually working better than the securitized mortgage market, which is a government creation through Fannie and Freddie.


But AIG had too many credit-default swaps on its books, and almost collapsed as a result. Shouldn't we prevent that level of risk-taking?
Yes, AIG made mistakes. And the company should suffer for those mistakes. But do you think that if federal regulators were regulating the credit-default-swap market, things would be better or worse? I suggest that things would probably be worse.

With free markets now in disrepute, what's going to happen to the popularity of Ayn Rand's most famous book, "Atlas Shrugged"?
I think it's going to go up dramatically. I think it already has. [People] are saying, "We're heading toward socialism, we're heading toward more regulation." "Atlas Shrugged" is coming true. How do we get out? How do we escape? Unfortunately, there is no escape. Businessmen are panicking, and I think they should be panicking. Many of them understand that this was not a crisis of free markets. There was no free market to fail. What we have is a regulated market, and the regulated market has failed.


My Commentary:

The introduction to this interview states that Ayn Rand was “anti-government”. This is one of many fallacies believed about her philosophy. Far from being anti-government, Rand understood that government is vital to the very existence of a free society…i.e., one based upon individual rights. That is because its proper, indispensable role is to protect man’s unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and property under a set of objective laws (a government of laws and not of men, which includes strong anti-fraud laws and enforcement of contracts). This was understood by the Founding Fathers. Without government, no civilized society is possible. It is against a government that steps outside the bounds of protecting rights that Rand…and the Founders…stood opposed to. One can read Rand’s position on individual rights and government and see for himself. Those essays are available at the sight of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Can Ayn Rand survive the financial crisis? Ayn Rand has yet to be discovered by most people…and is deliberately misrepresented or at least misunderstood by her detractors. The era of Ayn Rand, if there is to be one, is still ahead of us.