The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is the first Objectivist political action organization in history, and a learning curve is to be expected. Ayn Rand distinguished collaboration with those who share the same basic premises - which is to the advantage of the more consistent, in this case, to the advantage of the Objectivist - from collaboration with those whose basic premises are different, in which case collaboration advantages the more evil and irrational, who benefit from the sanction that collaboration gives them. Enlightenment-based Classical Liberals (Reason Magazine contributors such as Radley Balko, Virginia Postrel and Cathy Young, for example) are good potential allies. Supernaturalist Conservatives and populist/localist Libertarians, on the other hand, hold delusional premises - and giving them ideological credibility (and tainting our own) by collaborating with them can only be counterproductive. While individual Objectivists may well collaborate productively with non-Objectivist organizations on specific projects without appearing to endorse their ideologies, the Ayn Rand Center effectively lends Ayn Rand's name to organizations with whom it is seen to collaborate. But the task of distinguishing between those two categories of potential allies is hampered by America's current Pragmatist culture, which discourages even ideological organizations from openly stating their principles. Checking out the websites of potential allies, and identifying the premises underlying their political positions, is an essential component of ideological quality control - and an indispensable precondition of long-term political effectiveness.
I noticed that the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is listed as a "Co-Sponsor" of the 09.12.09 Protest at the Capitol. Reading the list of sponsors, Ayn Rand's name is the only one that the average American will immediately recognize. The logo of the "Protest at the Capitol" shows, with the US Capitol in the background, three red fists, in the style of the old anti-draft Left Libertarian protests that some Objectivists joined back in the 1960s, prompting Ayn Rand to caution them, in the essay I cite in my April 5th blog post (below) against the hazards of unprincipled alliances. The impulse is understandable: slavery, whether by old means of conscription, or of the new threats of higher taxes, "national service," hyperinflation and so on, is despicable enough that even the most rational individualists will feel the impulse to look for allies. But emotions are not a guide to action. Alliances with nuts and cranks transfer the credibility of rational men to men who do not deserve to be made credible. Who are the other sponsors of this event?
The primary "National Sponsor" and main organizer of this event is, as can be told from the red fist logo, a Left Libertarian organization, one called "FreedomWorks Foundation." (When I wrote this blog entry I didn't know that FreedomWorks is a front for Dick Armey. See my comment #6, below.) Their idea of "Freedom" includes the "freedom" to make "free" permanent copies of rented DVDs to one's hard drive - regardless of copyright. Back before the present plague of Pragmatism, even Conservatives, much less Objectivists, would have had qualms at associating with such an outfit. But under the cover of Pragmatism, with its the rejection of principles qua principles, the Left Libertarian position (with its disregard of individualist principles - such as the principle that a creator rightly owns the product of his creative action - for the sake of some "larger" social or political "freedom") has a certain appeal to the sufficiently Pragmatist Conservative. After all, media producers, directors, entertainers and songwriters are big financial contributors to the "Left." If they can be deprived of a part of their income, the campaign coffers of the "Left" will be that much lighter. And about the principle of the creator's right to the product of his mind - "Principle? What's a 'Principle'? You talk like an Elitist Intellectual! The Enemy!" Yet if this principle is discarded, a protest against taxation is left without a moral foundation - and its participants can only look like objectors, not against taxation per se, but only against some specific ends to which they are being taxed.
So much for the organizers. What about the ARC's fellow co-sponsors? They come in two varieties. Some identify as "Conservatives." For example, here is the mission statement from the FAQ of a double co-sponsor, GrassFire, which also lists its ResistNet affiliate as a separate co-sponsor: Grassfire.org’s leadership team holds a strong and unwavering commitment to conservative, pro-family and pro-faith values. And those are the lesser evil.
The other co-sponsors ("Campaign For Liberty," "Young Americans for Liberty" - formerly "Students for Ron Paul." and so on) are "Ron Paul Libertarians" - anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-global-trade, "anti-militarist anti-Imperialists," believers that Iran would be harmless if Americans had not objected when "Iran wanted to control its own oil fields."
Nuts and cranks. And the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Is it to be assumed, then, that you will no longer be a contributor to ARI?
As a guy whose blog was listed on the founding page of The Alliance of the Libertarian Left, I am not sure I'd call FreedomWorks Foundation a left-lib organization ~ given the friendly quote from George W. Bush. I appreciate the courtesy you show me on here ~ despite my dabbling in ideologies you find nutso ( :
On ARI: not a huge fan already
On rational individualist allies in America: I wish I knew more. How do you personally plan on dealing with hyperinflation? I sometimes wonder if I am witnessing the end of the U.S. in my mere early 20's. It's an unnerving thought. It really does suck to have to rationally contemplate finding a new place to live. When I walk through a major American city, I get "misty eyed" seeing the individualist melting pot quality of it all ~ knowing full well what problems exist too. My motivation in studying Rand's approach more intently is to improve my conceptual thinking abilities and potentially play a role in keeping America away from the worst. I have too many friends and decent family members here to not feel a selfish interest in the matter.
Favela,
Please do not assume any such thing. For one, ARC is just one ARI project, and in my view far from the most important. For another, ARC is the first Objectivist political action organization in history, and a learning curve is to be expected. I am writing about ARC's mistakes, because learning to avoid comparable mistakes in the future requires that previous mistakes be accurately identified, and learned from. I consider this identification from me, a contribution to ARI and ARC - one that I hope will be more useful than cash.
Nick,
"Left Libertarian" is not a homogeneous category, or a coherent political position. It is mainly a tendency to disregard individualist principles - such as the principle that a creator rightly owns the product of his creative action - for the sake of some "larger" (social or political) "freedom." It fits.
Adam,
Ayn Rand made a distinction between ideological and ad-hoc alliances, something your position seemingly fails to do. The Tea Party movement qua 9-12-09 is obviously ad-hoc, with a focus on narrow concretes as found on their site:
"We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road."
http://912dc.org/about/
Who can object to that? This is completely different from what AR was objecting to, say allying with the irrational Libertarian Party to supposedly advance the cause of liberty as such.
Parenthetically your indictment of FreedomWorks as "left-libertarian" strikes me as rationalistic, your comments to Nick notwithstanding. If "left-libertarian" = pragmatist, that's hardly a distinctive, useful label. And far from being a nutso fringe group, FreedomWorks is a high-profile, respected creature of Dick Armey, formerly one of the more liberty-oriented members of Congress. Altho I have not yet taken a magnifying glass to every aspect of the organization, they seem to be basically pro-liberty.
The one issue you cite as contrary evidence, the copyright views in an article written by an individual staffer, is rather thin gruel. Far from being a stand against copyright, the article seems to me to be arguing a legitimate point of contention within the current debate about the nature of intellectual property.
Ariel,
I know that you mean well, but to characterize Dick Armey as "one of the more liberty-oriented members of Congress" is grossly insulting to the concept of liberty as a pre-condition for humans to be able to live (in this case, in the literal sense) by their minds. It is also an insult to the millions of people whose lives he cut short, years before their natural end, by his ban on medical research into cloning-based biotechnologies. Armey was also responsible for nearly a decade's delay in medical research on applications of embryonic stem cells. I estimate that my own life has been shortened 10 to 20 years by Armey and his cohorts. My blog entry is premised on the assumption that the Ayn Rand Center's collaboration with Armey's organization is some kind of innocent error. If it had been done with prior knowledge that FreedomWorks is a Dick Armey front, it would be have been treason - not only treason to the millions of people already murdered by Dick Armey's war on cloning and embryonic stem cell technologies, but treason to the foundation of every idea that Ayn Rand stood for.
As for your claim that "Left" is "not a useful label for (being animated by) Pragmatism," you seem to be writing through a time-warp. Since the demise of Marxism, Pragmatism has been the only (pseudo)ideology "guiding" (and uniting, in spite of their occasional squabbles) the enemies of Capitalism. To the extent that "Left" is still a useful label for enemies of the heritage of the Enlightenment, and especially of enemies of Capitalism, the application of this label must focus on what unites those enemies. To limit the use of "the Left" to the Marxists, as you seem to be doing, is to be still fighting, after all these years, the previous war.
Adam,
It seems like you focused exclusively on my parenthetical remarks rather than the substance foregoing.
While I'm waiting for you to reply to the substance, I'll address the two points that you did make:
Yes in one sense Dick Armey is your typical conservative bifurcated along mind-body lines, tending to champion economic freedom but restricting some "personal" freedoms.
But notice that economic freedoms are what the Tea Party movement is explicitly about, per my quote from the 9-12-09 page. So again, it would seem that an ad-hoc participation is appropriate.
And yes, in that context it is appropriate to go in and try to influence the philosophical consistency for the better, maybe even enlarge it e.g. "personal" freedoms.
Re: the issue of pragmatism, I think you are the one "writing thru a time warp." Pragmatism is nothing new on the political or philosophical scene, and is endemic within both left and right. So it makes no sense to identify it exclusively with "left, "libertarian" anything.
"As for your claim that "Left" is "not a useful label for (being animated by) Pragmatism..."
I'll thank you to not distort what I actually said, verbatim. You originally said _left libertarian_; that's what I was responding to.
But why drag either term into this? Per above, that simply is not coextensive with pragmatism on any meaningful, distinctive political or philosophical map.
BTW if you think that ARC wasn't aware that Armey is behind FreedomWorks, be prepared to be disappointed. You really should give them more credit.
Ariel,
I'll assume, from your last comment, that you ("Ariel" seems to be an ad-hoc pseudonym; why you are hiding yourself is your business) know more than I about how ARC decisions are made. Given the magnitude of Armey's evil, I'll be charitable and assume that you have not followed the links in my response. Please do so. Collaboration with the prime mover of one of the largest democides in world history - 30 million murdered, and continuing - is not something to be done for borderline reasons. Since Armey's ban on cloning, and therefore a stop to the development of practical organ-replacement technologies within the next several decades, is nearly certain to cost me 10 or 20 years of my own life, it takes extreme forbearance on my part to continue this discussion. It is only because my concern about the heritage of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which I presume you share, that I am replying at all.
What Ayn Rand wrote on ad-hoc political action (The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7 January 3, 1972, "What Can One Do?") is this: 'Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." ... It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies... The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree.' The statement you quote, "We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road" - is closer to "let's do something" than to "a single, specific, clearly defined goal." "We've had enough" and so on, is not anywhere near close enough to the latter, to justify collaboration with the prime promoter of one of the greatest concrete evils in human history. Would you collaborate with the likes of Rachel Carson or Joseph Stalin, just to say "We’ve had enough of out of control spending?"
What Armey's side is saying, in effect, is: "We've already made sure that you will be stopped from spending your money to extend your own life and your own happiness. Now we can collaborate on doing something about out-of-control government spending." Do you actually believe that Ayn Rand would have replied "Yes, let's do that?"
Adam,
"Collaboration with the prime mover of one of the largest democides in world history - 30 million murdered, and continuing - is not something to be done for borderline reasons."
"Borderline" reasons?
"Since Armey's ban on cloning,"
Armey did not "ban" cloning, altho I believe he was instrumental. But _prime mover_? Don't you think this is personalizing overmuch? You don't think it would have happened regardless?
"and therefore a stop to the development of practical organ-replacement technologies within the next several decades, is nearly certain to cost me 10 or 20 years of my own life, it takes extreme forbearance on my part to continue this discussion."
I understand, and share your entirely rational concerns and feelings.
"What Ayn Rand wrote on ad-hoc political action (The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7 January 3, 1972, "What Can One Do?") is this: 'Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." ... It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies... The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree.'"
Thank you for posting this seminal quote. Let's reiterate the operant part again:
"The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, ***on which men of differing views can agree***.'" [emphasis Ariel's]
"The statement you quote, "We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road" - is closer to "let's do something" than to "a single, specific, clearly defined goal." "We've had enough" and so on, is not anywhere near close enough to the latter,"
I'd say the _implicit_ action items of "let's do something" here are (all quotes herein from 9-12-09):
"Roll back spending" (especially on the welfare state, considering the Tea Party's obvious constituency. I definitely doubt they'd support a rollback of legitimate government functions, like the military, the police, and the courts. They might be in favor of all sorts of altruistic welfare state schemes, just not so extreme.)
"End the bailouts." If you want to take just a populist reading, this would extend to any sort of "corporate welfare." Insofar as there's a wider, more rational, more consistent constituency, end all kinds of ridiculous government subsidies.
"The growth of big government." Not much left to unpack here, not even Bush-style "compassionate" big government.
"Soaring deficits." Well, obviously here, since they've already said they're opposed to spending increases, that rules out tax increases too, which have usually been more easily opposed by the "loyal opposition."
Is that clearly defined enough? Are these reasonable implications, given the context?
"to justify collaboration with the prime promoter of one of the greatest concrete evils in human history. Would you collaborate with the likes of Rachel Carson or Joseph Stalin, just to say "We’ve had enough of out of control spending?"
Rachel Carson maybe, but that's a crazy rationalistic stretch, given everything we know about her. Stalin, of course not. But Dick Armey = Josef Stalin? You'll have to do better.
"What Armey's side is saying, in effect, is: "We've already made sure that you will be stopped from spending your money to extend your own life and your own happiness. Now we can collaborate on doing something about out-of-control government spending." Do you actually believe that Ayn Rand would have replied "Yes, let's do that?"
Well, she actually did support various statist types, over several presidential elections. And she denounced all their shortcomings too.
Ariel,
I followed the history of the ban on cloning in real time and very closely, as I had reason to. Armey absolutely deserves both the designation of prime mover of this ban, and the comparison to Joseph Stalin. The facts require treatment at greater length than would be appropriate in a comment, but I will follow up with a full blog posting on that.
As for Ayn Rand's criteria for morally justifiable ad-hoc collaboration:
A single goal? You just listed 4.
Specific? As you just wrote, the meaning of each of those 4 "goals" (which are actually closer to 4 slogans) is left implicit, to be understood in different ways by different participants.
Well-defined? Does the fact that you were able to project a reasonable definition onto each of those 4 slogans, mean that they had shared, much less reasoned, definitions to begin with?
Did Ayn Rand collaborate with various less-than-coherent political campaigns? Only until it became evident, from the facts of reality made obvious by the actions of Ronald Reagan, that such collaboration was counterproductive. Did she still collaborate with such campaigns, after she understood the facts that she wrote about (as I cited above) in 1972? NO.
Post a Comment