Aaron Powel: Welcome to Free Thoughts. I'm
Aaron Powell.
Trevor Burrus: And I'm Trevor Burrus.
Aaron Powel: Our guest today is Eamonn Butler.
He's director and co-founder of the Adam Smith
Institute, and he's also the author of many
books. His latest is Ayn Rand: an Introduction,
published just this week by the Institute
for Economic Affairs and Libertarianism.org.
Welcome to Free Thoughts, Eamonn.
Eamonn Butler: Yes, hello. You're welcome.
Aaron Powel: Maybe a good place to start is
[00:00:30] with Rand's early life, and how
did her early life, how did her experiences
in Russia and then coming to the US, influence
her fiction and her philosophy?
Eamonn Butler: Profoundly I think. She was,
of course, born in 1905 in St. Petersburg,
which is of course in Russia. [00:01:00] This
was of course, just before the Russian revolution.
So, when she was just about 10 or 11, she
saw the Russian revolution breaking out, and
of course it broke out predominantly starting
in St. Petersburg itself.
She came from a ... It was a Jewish family,
and her father ran a pharmacy shop. When the
revolution broke out of [00:01:30] course,
they tried to escape. They went briefly to
the Crimea, and because her father's business
was nationalized, taken over by the revolutionary
government, and then in Crimea, the same happened
again, when the Red Army got to Crimea, they
took his business again, so they returned
to St. Petersburg. And of course she grew
up during those years when the Communists
[00:02:00] were trying to build a new order,
but of course, it was an absolute disaster.
It was shortages and injustices, and summary
killings and all the rest of it, and people
with property and businesses were disinherited.
She saw that as a profound injustice, that
people who really had no claim at all, were
taking property, and indeed, taking the lives
of people [00:02:30] who were simply trying
to fend for themselves, build up a business,
improve life for themselves and their families,
and she found that terribly unjust. It really
colored the rest of her writings, where she's
very strongly in favor of the individual who
can build up his or her own business, his
or her own life, family, and everything else
that's important to people, and [00:03:00]
that they should be able to that without people
coming along and simply taking those things
away from you. Yes, it was a very profound
upbringing.
Then of course, from there, she went to university
and discovered lots of interesting novelists,
which again, colored her writings, like Victor
Hugo and so on, but she also discovered Greek
philosopher Aristotle, [00:03:30] and other
people who informed her philosophy. Then she
rather cleverly got a visa to go to America.
You had to get a visa to leave Russia then,
but she enrolled in a state cinematic institute,
and got this visa in order to go to America
and in order to study film. On that [00:04:00]
visa, eventually she met an actor in Hollywood,
she became married and became an American
citizen, and spent the rest of her life in
America. An interesting upbringing, and it
brought something new to America; this way
of thinking, the Russian way of writing and
so on, which was completely new in America,
so it was quite an important influence in
the rest of her life.
Trevor Burrus: Was her [00:04:30] first love,
it seems like it was movies maybe, and then
she was writing novels later, and she definitely
seemed enthralled by movies. She was involved
with more movie making experiences than a
lot of people might realize.
Eamonn Butler: Oh yes, absolutely. In fact,
when she came to America, she stayed with
some relatives, I think it was in Chicago,
and they actually owned a cinema, so I think
she spent a long while in the [00:05:00] cinema
there, just going through lots and lots and
lots of different films. Yes, that was very
important to her.
You see, this was a new medium. I think Rand
loved things that were sort of new and obviously
loved things that were kind of rational. So,
when she landed in New York in 1926, it wasn't
a very nice day; it was a winter's day, but
she was just overwhelmed by the skyline, which
to her was just rational and logical, [00:05:30]
but also heroic. That is, I think, what people
were trying to produce in movies at the time.
As I say, in Chicago, one of her relatives
owned a movie theater, and so she indulged
that passion. She borrowed money off the relative
and went to California to try to make her
fortune.
She had no idea of doing what she was supposed
to do under the visa, which is to study [00:06:00]
American film then go back. She knew that
she wanted to live in America rather than
this catastrophic and unjust nation that was
being built in Russia. And on her second day
in Hollywood, she just happened to run into
Cecil B. Demille, who was a leading filmmaker,
film director, and he hired her first as an
extra, and then that's where she met her future
husband, Frank O'Connor. [00:06:30] And she
wrote lots of screenplays for films during
that period, so it was very much, for many,
many years, it was really what she did. She
was in movies. She was writing screenplays,
editing screenplays, tightening up screenplays,
and that sort of thing.
Aaron Powel: Is that then what led her to
make, I mean, the kind of out of the ordinary
decision for people who have grand philosophies
they want to express, [00:07:00] which is
to ... She wrote novels instead of writing
philosophical tracks. I mean, she wrote some
of those, but those came later. Was it just
that that was she loved and fiction was what
she thought? Or did she ... How fiction was
the way she knew how to express herself, or
was there some other motive behind that? Some
thinking that fiction was maybe a better way
to get these ideas across?
Eamonn Butler: Yes. It's one of these things
where people say, "Well, did she write novels
in order [00:07:30] to express her philosophy?"
And what she actually said was that, "No,
no. I had to develop the philosophy in order
to write my novels." And that novel writing
was what she wanted to do. I mean, she finished
her first novel in 1934, so I mean she was
not even in her 30s. And that was a sort of
brutal portrayal of life [00:08:00] in the
new Soviet Union. And it was very much at
odds with what Americans and westerners at
the time thought the Soviet Union was all
about, and they saw it as a sort of heroic,
even the middle class intellectual saw it
as a kind of wonderful experiment kind of
thing. But she, having lived through it, knew
that it was an absolute disaster.
So she wrote this, what we would call in America,
or the UK where I live, we would [00:08:30]
call this a philosophical novel. And it's
unusual in America. It's unusual in Britain.
It's unusual in the west. But it's very commonplace
in Russia, that you have this novel which
somehow sort of expresses a philosophy and
the philosophy informs the characters and
all the rest of it. And then she followed
that up with another novel, just two years
later. So yes, [00:09:00] writing fiction,
I think, was very much what she was good at
and wanted to do. And I think although she
said that the sort of philosophy came out
of that, I think it's ... I'm not sure quite
how closely their related. And she was good
at ... And I think that the philosophy sort
of came later, and it was added on later,
and she thought about it later. And sadly,
I mean [00:09:30] she died really before she
could complete a lot of the thinking and write
a real treatise that explained her philosophy
in philosophical terms. So we've got the books
to go on, but not a great deal of other things.
Trevor Burrus: One of the distinctive things
about objectivists, Randians, is it's a fairly,
today in her, it's a fairly total philosophy.
There's some of the rifts between [00:10:00]
different factions of objectivists, and also
libertarians and objectivists often hinge
upon the path of not accepting the whole thing,
soup to nuts. So let's get into some of the
soup nuts, so to speak, and that it includes
a metaphysics into the epistemology, and a
morality, and a politics. What did Rand view
as metaphysics as the ultimate nature of reality
so to speak?
Eamonn Butler: Well, it's interesting, just
as an aside, I mean you talked [00:10:30]
about the sort of rifts between Rand and within
Rand's circle, and those were very current.
In fact, when I was at university, and just
sort of starting to read these things, it's
one of things that put me off, and I didn't
come back to it until many, many years later,
because it just seems so factional and so
personal, and people were either in or they
were out and you had to take the whole thing.
And if you didn't take the whole thing, then
you're somehow [00:11:00] heretical and you
couldn't be talked to at all. So there was
that sort of sectarianism about it, which
I found deeply unattractive.
But I can see why, because to her, as you
rightly said, this whole thing is a comprehensive
unit. Her metaphysics, what is the nature
of the universe? Well, to her, it's objective
reality. That's it. There's an objective world
out there. How [00:11:30] do we know about
that universe? Epistemology. Well, we can
only know about it by reason, by applying
reason to what we see, and then from that,
she goes on to the principles by which we
should live. You should live according, in
a way which is true to that reality. And to
her, that means the principles of self-interest.
[00:12:00] And then that brings her on to
politics, where again, it's sort of self-interest
in social organization, which means capitalism.
And she also bolts on romanticism and art.
But those are the main things. Objective reality,
reason, self-interest, capitalism, everything
hangs together. And this actually, I think,
what makes Rand's ideas so attractive, particularly,
I think, to the young, because [00:12:30]
they're looking for an answer to everything.
And she kind of gives you an answer to everything.
This is all joined up. The world works in
this way, we have to live by these principles
in order to be at one with the world.
Trevor Burrus: When it comes to metaphysics,
that reality exists, or there is such a thing
as objective reality, I mean we know about
philosophers, whether it's like Bishop Barclay,
or people who said that idealism might be
a thing. But that doesn't seem terribly [00:13:00]
unique. I think most philosophers would say
that something called reality exists. Was
there something distinctive about the way
that she made this claim?
Eamonn Butler: I don't know ... It's very
... It's quite an old idea. I'm going to say
it goes back to Aristotle and some of the
Greek philosophers. So they ... Yes, you're
right. Realism, as it's called in philosophical
circles, has [00:13:30] quite a long standing.
I think the reason that it was interesting
is because sort of empirical philosophy was
rule the roost then. You had people like F.
A. Hayek and so on who were steeped, really,
in the Scottish empirical school, which is
that we don't actually know the world, all
we can do is make guesses about it, and we
try those guesses, and if they work, then
we do more of them, and if they don't [00:14:00]
work, then we do less of them. And that's
how we find out about the world.
And people like Karl Popper, the Austrian
philosopher of science, again saying that's
how science works. It's a web of guesses,
and we don't know what the world is like,
but we have a guess. And we test those guesses.
We do experiments and see whether they stand
up. And if they don't, then we abandon them
and make another guess. [00:14:30] And Rand
is sort of coming from it the other way around
and saying, "No, no. There is an objective
world there. We can sort of understand it
by using our reason to clarify how it works
and what it's all about." So is it something
which is out there that through applying your
mind, you can work out what the reality is
like? Working out of mathematical proof? Or
is it something you don't know what it is
and you just have to stick your finger in
it and see whether [00:15:00] it hurts?
Aaron Powel: What reason does she give or
have for thinking that human reason is capable
of that? So I mean we could say like a dog,
a dog's mind. We as higher beings than a dog
can look at a dog and say that there are lots
of things about the world that that dog not
only can't figure out, but can't figure out
that it can't figure out. It can't even be
aware that it can't figure them out, because
its brain just [00:15:30] lacks the capacity
to understand the nature of reality. And so
we're certainly smarter than a dog. But is
there-
Trevor Burrus: Most of us.
Aaron Powel: -is there a reason to believe
that our brains are so powerful? Like they're
just kind of as good as it can get, and that
they're capable of understanding everything?
Because to me, that seems like a very large
claim that I'm not sure how you would even
set out to prove.
Eamonn Butler: Yes. Well I think that [00:16:00]
that's actually a very telling criticism,
because if you look, I mentioned F. A. Hayek.
If you look at his view on epistemology, and
how we get to knowledge about the universe,
he says our minds don't sort of float above
reality. We can't hover above reality, looking
down to see what it is. Our minds have actually
been created [00:16:30] by this universe,
because we've evolved as complicated social
beings, and as part of that, we have a mind
which works in particular ways. And it works
in particular ways because it manages to deal
with the universe fairly well.
And therefore, we're a sort of part of this
world which we're trying to understand. And
therefore, [00:17:00] it inevitably, we can't
separate ourselves from it and say, "Well,
there's an objective reality out there, and
we can somehow detect that." So I think that's
actually quite a telling criticism. And I
don't know that she overcomes it. I mean,
again, one of her failings is that she doesn't,
if you like, debate with other philosophers
[00:17:30] very much. She tends to like a
few philosophers, and everybody else she kind
of dismisses as sort of how these people are
just wrong, and they've taken things on a
wrong turn, rather than sort of going through
their arguments and trying to meet them. So
I think that's actually a very telling proposition.
What she says is, of course, that, "Okay,
we are human beings. We may have our limitations."
The question for us [00:18:00] is how do we
human beings make our world our way in whatever
it is that's out there? And she says, "The
only way that we can do that is to apply our
reason to the best of our ability." We might
not always get it right. And we don't get
it right. And we have to abandon things that
are proved to be mistaken. But only by using
our reason will we get anything close to understanding
what the world is like, and therefore, [00:18:30]
how we should live within it.
Trevor Burrus: Before we move on to her moral
philosophy, since we're on metaphysics and
epistemology, I want to ask you about something
that I've heard Randians and objectivists
say quite often, which is A equals A. There's
a particular ... Even there's a sort of notorious,
at least for me, Leonard Peikoff interview
on Bill O'Reilly, about 15 years ago during
the outset of the Iraq War I believe. And
they're talking about bombing Iran I think.
And [00:19:00] O'Reilly asks him some questions,
"What if this happened?" And Peikoff's answer
is, "Well what if A didn't equal A?" I've
heard this sort of response, as like it's
a very strange way of answering a criticism,
"What if A didn't equal A?" Why is that something
that Randians commonly say?
Eamonn Butler: Let me just go through this.
There are sort of basic axioms she says. First,
we know that things exist. Our brains make
us aware that there's a world out there. [00:19:30]
We don't necessarily know the exact nature,
how they behave, but we know they're there.
So to her, she says existence exists. Secondly,
we're aware that things exist. We perceive
them, so there must be something out there
because we can't be conscious of nothing.
We have to be conscious of something. So we
know that there's something out there. And
third, to be something, she says, implies
that that thing has an identity. It has a
collection of qualities [00:20:00] that distinguish
it as a particular thing and not something
else.
So a tree has particular characters that you
and I don't have. A tree has roots that go
into the ground and so on, and we don't, and
has leaves and we don't. It has a whole variety
of characteristics which other things don't
have. So that brings her back to ... Again,
goes back to Aristotle. The idea [00:20:30]
that existence is identity. That something
is what it is, it can't be anything else.
And that is what she calls the Law of Identity.
I'm very skeptical of this line of reasoning
myself. I think that this is about words rather
than things, and it's about how we try to
identify things. And quite often, we get it
wrong. So is there [00:21:00] something that
is specific out there? It's got certain, irredeemable,
irreducible qualities and somehow we get to
know that? Or do we just have to make a guess?
And often there are deep boundaries.
What's the distance between a stool and a
chair? Well, a chair has a back, but suppose
it's only a small back. Is that still a chair?
Or does it then become a stool. And it just
depends on how we choose to think about these
things and how we find it convenient [00:21:30]
to refer to them. It's not necessarily something
which is kind of out there and objective.
So that's the sort of criticism that people
would make of her argument.
Trevor Burrus: Moving into her morality, so
we have the three basic questions of philosophy.
What is there? How do we know about it? And
what do you do about it? Metaphysics, epistemology,
and moral. So where did she go after saying
there is reality, we have awareness of it,
and we can use reason? What does that mean
for what you should do [00:22:00] about things?
About your life?
Eamonn Butler: Yes, well, moral values and
actions are extremely important to human beings
according to Rand because uniquely among living
things, we have the ability to choose how
we behave, how we treat others, and the virtues
and ideals to which we aspire. So if we're
going to make good moral choices, we need
to make another choice, which is to think
objectively. [00:22:30] That is to use our
reason and focus it on establishing what she
says is the true nature of things, without
evading, without drifting, or without getting
confused. And where she boils that down, she
says, "Well, what is the ends to which people
should live?" And the answer is life. That's
our highest value. That's what we're aiming
for.
By what principle should we act in order to
achieve [00:23:00] that end of life? Well,
the answer is use our reason, use your brain.
And who should we focus our actions at improving?
Whose life are we talking about here? Who
should profit from your actions? And the answer
is yourself. Not anybody else. So her view
is that in order to be consistent with this
world, we should be pursuing life, we should
be using reason to work out [00:23:30] how
to achieve life, and the person that we're
doing this for is basically ourselves, not
for other people.
Aaron Powel: One thing that I often find puzzling
about this aspect of Rand's moral theory,
and I know that this is an issue that there's
some debate on among Rand scholars, is this
life as the standard of value. Because she
has a very robust [00:24:00] and expansive
moral theory that says there are certain kinds
of things you ought to do, and there are certain
ways that you ought to behave, and it's wrong
to behave in other ways. But it's not entirely
clear to me how that stuff can be derived
just from the notion of life or survival.
So I mean, to put it ... The very obvious
counter-example would be there have been billions
and billions of people who have lived very
long lives, and didn't know [00:24:30] about
or didn't follow Rand's moral rules. And so
it's not clear that the relationship between
following the rules of objectivism and living,
because clearly there are non-objectivists
who still live. So is there something more
to just ... Is this not just a mere survival
standard? Is there something more like a baked
in, to put in Aristotelian terms, like a flourishing,
or a Eudemonia, or like a life that is the
right kind of life?
Eamonn Butler: [00:25:00] Well, she says you
should live according to your rational self-interest.
And the important thing there is rational.
She doesn't advocate that people should just
dissolve into hedonism and drink alcohol and
smoke cigars and act in ways that are irresponsible.
She says you need to work out what is right
for you in the [00:25:30] long term. And your
ultimate value might be life, but there are
things that you have to do in order to achieve
that in the long term. And your long term
happiness, another important factor for her,
depends upon doing the right things, if you
like, the rational things, rather than just
doing whatever comes into your head, and so,
"It would be nice [00:26:00] to do this today?
Why don't I just do this and get myself completely
blind drunk, or get myself onto heroin and
have a nice day?"
Because in the long term, that is damaging
for you and it will achieve the opposite of
what you want to achieve. But I think, again,
you've got it quite right that this ... The
life standard is a difficult one, because
most moral decisions that we make [00:26:30]
aren't matters of life and death. It may be
that you could say, "Well, we really ought
to be honest, because if we weren't honest,
then in the long run, we'd never get on together
and we'd never be able to do anything. We
would die because we couldn't cooperate."
[inaudible 00:26:45] That may be true, but
in a particular instance, "Okay, I've taken
something from my young son because I think
it's bad for him. And he asks where it is.
What'll [00:27:00] I do? Do I say it's lost
or do I say I've taken it from you because
I think it's bad for you?"
Well, you lie. Parents do. And in many cases,
you have to lie. Now is that good or is it
bad? Is it pro-life or anti-life? Well, it's
really difficult to say. That a little thing
like that, telling a fib to your son for his
own best interest is a difficult to say something
like that is a matter [00:27:30] of life and
death. But this is Rand's ultimate standard.
Trevor Burrus: When she says selfishness,
she has a book called The Virtue of Selfishness,
a collection of essays. And a lot of people
take that and read a bunch into it and say
that that means you will do anything whatsoever
to preserve your life like, I don't know,
George Costanza on Seinfeld or something,
not even care about anyone else. But what
does she mean by selfishness in her ... We
kind [00:28:00] of got into it a little bit,
but in her specific definition of that term?
Eamonn Butler: Well, what she means is pursuing
your own values. Now, your values are not
necessarily simply your own life and welfare.
It may be, as she said herself when her husband
died, "I had lost my greatest value." So there
are other things, other people are important
to you. Principles are important to [00:28:30]
you. The fact that the world is working in
some particular way is important to you, and
people will spend a lot of time and energy
and effort in trying to convince people of
political philosophies or clean up the planet
or tell people that they shouldn't throw litter,
and all sorts of things like that, because
these are very high values to them.
And in many cases, the welfare of other people
is a high value. And [00:29:00] I think that
one of the criticisms I would make, Rand,
she tends to draw human beings as rather individualists,
whereas we have grown up as a social species.
And the welfare of other people is actually
very important to us. So it's important how
other people live and how we get on with other
people, and their happiness and life is important
to [00:29:30] us. Well, she says, "If that's
important to you, that's what you should actually
be focusing on." So it's your values that
you should focus on, not necessarily your
own life, because if you lose your greatest
value, you may conclude that your life now
has no meaning. So in many cases, suicide
for example, is perfectly rational on the
Rand thinking. [00:30:00] So it's your individual
values that count.
Trevor Burrus: Well, so on the flip side of
that, she has a specific definition of altruism
too, which she views as an evil in the way
she defines it. But as you point out, it doesn't
mean just caring about people, which it's
okay to care about people if it's your values.
It means something else.
Eamonn Butler: Yes, that's right. Yes. What
her worry about altruism, she has many worries
about altruism, [00:30:30] but she thinks
it's an evil actually. She thinks that the
prevailing morality in religion, and many
other forms of reality, they urge us to live
for the benefit of others rather than ourselves.
They praise self-sacrifice. And they say that
self-serving, things that benefit you, are
immoral. And that means, [00:31:00] she says,
that the standard of morality then is not
the value of the action itself, but the identity
of who benefits. And according to that, serving
others is good, serving yourself is bad.
And she says on that criteria, there's really
nothing to choose between gangsters and business
people. They're both evil because they're
both self-interested. And she thinks that
that's just, of course, completely wrong.
There is a big difference between gangsters
and business people. Gangsters exploit [00:31:30]
other people through violence and force, and
business people enrich other people through
voluntary exchange. There's no moral equivalence
at all. And she says you shouldn't confuse
altruism with kindness, goodwill, or respect
for others. We can all do that. It's core
demand is self-sacrifice which means self-denial.
So that, if you like, makes morality everybody's
enemy. To be moral, you [00:32:00] have to
do what's bad for you. She says that's no
way to live, and it's certainly not consistent
with the way we're created and the way the
world works.
Aaron Powel: How do we get from that to then
... You said so like the problem with gangsters
is that they exploit other people for their
own ends. But how is that wrong within this
system as it's set out? Because if I'm morally
obligated to do what's of value to me, [00:32:30]
there may be instances where I could say,
"Steal something from Trevor," because then
it will enable me to do something that fulfills
my principles or my values more. So why should
I respect rights in this system? Especially
when respecting rights in a given instance
would be harmful to me?
Eamonn Butler: Yeah. She draws the line at
force. It's the use of force which she thinks
is one of the greatest [00:33:00] evils. That
we can get along very well by mutual cooperation
and just simply getting along with each other.
When you start to use force, then there's
no end to it. And that way lies tyranny, and
being brought up in the early Soviet Union,
that's not the place that she wants to be.
She sees a world which is [00:33:30] morally
superior in that it doesn't have ... It's
not founded on force. That's why she is so
pro-capitalism, so pro laissez faire capitalism,
because there's no force involved. It's entirely
voluntary. You trade with people or you don't
trade with people. It's up to you. So what
she's against is people being told that they
have to make a sacrifice to others, and certainly
being forced to make a sacrifice to others,
[00:34:00] that to her, I think, is the greatest
evil. It's use of force, and there's [inaudible
00:34:07] once you start on that road, there's
no limit.
Trevor Burrus: This defense of capitalism
that comes from her and objectivists, it has
a little bit of a different flavor. We put
together the pieces here, metaphysics to epistemology,
reason, self-interest. But what we get from
capitalism here is less, "Hey, capitalism
is good because it helps the poor the best.
[00:34:30] Or because it makes goods cheaper."
Or some sort of instrumental consequentialist
argument.
Aaron Powel: It creates wealth.
Trevor Burrus: It creates wealth. It's something
much more like, "Capitalism is good because
it is the moral truth of a human flourishing
life. And creating value and pursuing your
own ends, in like a heroic fashion, is what
makes it good." Which is why sometimes Randians
get mad when you use instrumental or [00:35:00]
consequentialist justifications for capitalism.
They get mad at us a lot.
Eamonn Butler: I think both should be applauded
quite frankly. Any defense of capitalism is
good these days. To Rand, if you want a rational
economic system, economics is really the science
of applying social principles to production,
if you like. That if you want a rational economic
system, it's got to be rooted [00:35:30] in
the nature of the world, the nature of ourselves.
And to be moral, it's got to respect our basic
rights. And it's certainly got to avoid force.
And the only system that does that, according
to Rand, is laissez faire capitalism, capitalism
without government intervention.
Because only capitalism respects people's
property rights, and that makes it the only
moral system. Also then, moral social system,
capitalism is a social system, [00:36:00]
because it respects people's rights and their
values and their right to have their own values.
A capitalist in a capitalist society, you
can still value art, or science, or literature
above material goods. It doesn't make you
focus only on money. People decide their own
priorities. But in terms of production, that's
the rational way. And I think you are right.
I think that her defense of capitalism [00:36:30]
is intriguing because it was so fresh and
new. And that she certainly argued that nobody
had to sacrifice anything under capitalism,
and she saw that production itself was a virtue
because it was creative.
And in her novels it's ... She applauds business
people because they create something of value.
Value doesn't grow on trees, you have to create
[00:37:00] it. And capitalism is very good
at creating effective, efficient producers.
And it's encourages, the freedom that is allowed
in capitalism, encourages people to use their
minds and apply their minds to problems. So
she's very much in favor of capitalism as
the only moral system. But also, I think she
does say that it actually produces the goods.
There is a bit of a tension, you're right,
and [00:37:30] people have debated this, you're
right. But she actually, if you look at her
writings, I think that she says both. Firstly,
it's a moral system. But secondly, looking
at her writings and articles in particular
on say Britain ... Sorry, on America and Russia.
She's saying the capitalist system is better.
It's producing more. It's doing better with
people. People are richer. So she is looking
at the results as well as looking [00:38:00]
at the philosophy of it.
Aaron Powel: It seems like there might be
a tension here between her moral prohibitions
on force and coercion. That once you allow
those in, you're on your way to tyranny, and
her rejection of anarchism. Because we spend
a lot of time on Free Thoughts talking about
the justifications for [00:38:30] and the
nature of the state, and the state is effectively,
by definition, is a group of people who have
been empowered to or entitled to use force
and coercion against other people. And so
the anarchist would say, "If you're opposed
to those things, then you have to be opposed
to the state." But she was pretty strongly
not an anarchist. So how did she rectify that?
Is that a tension? And if it is, how did she
rectify it?
Eamonn Butler: Yes. You're right, she was
[00:39:00] very critical of anarchism. And
famously split from Murray Rothbard, the sort
of great thinker on anarcho-capitalism. She
rejected the idea that we don't need government
at all, because she thought that that would
expose us to predation by criminals. And her
view was, "We can't be rational, we can't
think, we can't [00:39:30] create, we can't
produce if we are living in fear that other
people are going to steal our things or assault
us and take our property or our lives."
So we can't live as rational human beings
if we are living in fear, having to carry
arms with us, having to fortify our homes,
and to form gangs for our own protection.
Having a state of some sort, she [00:40:00]
believed, sent out a signal that there's no
point in initiating force, because force would
be returned. And to her, the sole purpose
of the state was to make sure that using force
wasn't worthwhile because the state had more
force and it would flatten you if you tried
it.
So yes, I think this is ... It is very difficult
because again, many people will have [00:40:30]
argued that, "Well, once you start saying,
'Well, we need a state,' well, where does
that stop?" Because we've seen in the past
that countries like the United States for
example have started a fairly small government
with a specific aim, and now, it does just
about everything, frankly. And lots and lots
and lots of things that it shouldn't do and
which can't be justified under its founding
principles. So I think that is [00:41:00]
a bit of a problem in Rand. She calls herself
a radical for capitalism rather than an anarchist,
simply because she thought that anarchism
just precluded her in the state entirely,
and that you couldn't live without something
which would protect you. Of course, Murray
Rothbard would say, "No, that's no problem
at all. People just get together and they
hire people to protect them, just as they
hire people to unblock their drains or fix
their electricity."
Trevor Burrus: If [00:41:30] you look at her
books, as you mentioned, especially The Fountainhead
and Atlas Shrugged, the heroes are makers.
They're people making things for some reason,
trains are a really big deal in Atlas Shrugged.
And there are architects, and there are people
who are takers who are parasites who want
to take what they produce. This leads to a
criticism, especially in these sort of fraught
inequality times. We're [00:42:00] talking
about inequality a lot, that therefore it
implies that the distribution of wealth that
results from a capitalist system is morally
justified. That the people who have a lot
of money at the top deserve it because they're
titans of industry, and they're making things,
and they're heroic beings. And the people
who don't deserve it because they're not heroic
beings. And this is something you hear from
Robert Reich I think made a criticism [00:42:30]
recently, "This is exactly what Mitt Romney's
worldview is and what Paul Ryan's worldview
is. There are makers and there are takers."
Is that a fair criticism or description of
the implications of her views?
Eamonn Butler: I think it's a fair description,
yes. I think that ... I mean, Nozick puts
it ... Nozick, philosopher, puts it quite
well. He says, "Take a basketball star or
something, and people want to see this person
play, [00:43:00] so they pay a few dollars,
and they go to the stadium, and they watch
the game, and they are each a few dollars
poorer, and the basketball star is many thousands
of dollars richer." But nobody has acted in
an unjust way. Nobody had been forced to do
anything, so even if they started equal in
terms of their incomes or wealth, they haven't
finished equal.
But if nobody's [00:43:30] acted unjustly,
how can that result in distribution be unjust
itself? And so Rand, I think though, focuses
really more on those heroes themselves. Her
heroes are individualists. They live by their
own creative talent, so they produce things
that which of course benefit all of us. They
exist for nobody else but themselves. They
don't ask other people to exist for them.
They're rebels. [00:44:00] They don't conform
to social norms, but they stand by their own
vision, and they understand their own version
of truth in their minds. They understand it
and they build their vision and their values,
their vision on those values and on that truth.
And facts and reason are not on the forced
authority of others.
So they're creative minds. And that means
they're discovering new things. They're discovering
new knowledge. They innovate, and therefore
[00:44:30] they drive progress. And that,
consequently, benefits all humanity. And you
can't do that, of course, if you're ... You
can't force people to do that, creativity
depends upon being free to act and think,
and this is why she's so strong on capitalism
as a moral system. It leaves you free to think,
free to act, and then you ... Yes, you pursue
your own values, and you benefit accordingly.
Of course, it may be, and [00:45:00] I've
know a lot of very rich people, and indeed
they're so rich they can't actually ... They
don't have time to spend what it is they've
made.
So what do they do? The answer is that they
set up charitable foundations, or they do
other things in order to use that money. And
to promote causes which thereby promote their
own values. If Bill Gates thinks it's important
to wipe out malaria in the developing world,
he gives is fortune to causes like that, [00:45:30]
and in so doing, benefits a lot of people
in the developing world.
Trevor Burrus: What do you think is the biggest
... I mean, it depends on which side it's
coming from of course, but the biggest misconception
of Rand? There's a ton of them. She kind of
operates as a figure that can sort of put
everyone, like I said, Paul Ryan and everyone
that believes in capitalism, for many people
on the left are just unrepentant Randians
who want the poor to die. But all these kind
of misconceptions are out there. What do you
think is the most pernicious [00:46:00] one?
Eamonn Butler: Yes. I think it's that, that
life is all about selfishness. The language
is unfortunate. We can't really have anything
which is simple, but that expresses what's
she's trying to get it. What she's trying
to get at is we should live for ourselves.
Now, we're complicated creatures, and yes,
we do actually value what others think and
what others do and so on. And we value some
people [00:46:30] more than we value others.
But we should live for those values, and in
doing that, we will actually create a better
world and create a better human society.
Because we will be encouraging the things
that ought to be encouraged, and we will be
discouraging the things that should be discouraged.
And her objection to traditional morality,
she says it's all about self-sacrifice, you
help other people and think of them first.
No, that simply [00:47:00] encourages people
to take advantage of other people. It encourages
them to make themselves worse off. They can
get the benefits of being worse off and get
other people to shower them with money, or
they want the government to shower them with
money.
So we want to encourage people to be independent,
strong-minded, but at the same time, good
citizens. And that is actually her idea of
selfishness. But because [00:47:30] the word
has traditionally meant something different,
people think, "Oh, it's all devil take the
high most, capitalism waiting tooth and claw,
no regard for other people." It's not that
at all.
Aaron Powel: We live in a rather different
world from the one Ayn Rand lived in when
she wrote The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
So what value ... I mean, you just published
a book about the ideas of Ayn Rand. What [00:48:00]
value do you think she still has today? And
what do you think her legacy will be?
Eamonn Butler: Well, I think that ... On many
levels, I think probably, that there's a sort
of philosophical level, and then there are
more practical levels. And so on the philosophical
level, the fact that she worked out a way
to integrate so many different parts of her
philosophy I think is quite interesting, [00:48:30]
and new, and radically different. And she
brought, and brings new ideas on life, on
personal morality, on politics and economics,
all based, she says, on reason. Using your
mind. Now that's actually a very powerful
idea that it's not about what you happen to
like. It's about what works, what you can
work out about the world. It's [00:49:00]
an objective morality rather than just one
that you just [inaudible 00:49:04] because
it sounds good, or you came across it in a
book.
And that's what, to her, the virtue of selfishness.
And the same in politics and economics as
well. That these are political systems that
are founded on rational principles. And I
think another thing I would say that she [00:49:30]
is remembered for is really her sort of robustness,
that she believes all this so strongly, and
that there's no gray in Ayn Rand. You either
use your reason or you're revolting against
reason and you're all over the place. She's
an absolutist only in the sense of she's absolute
about reality. And that, although it causes
her views to be seen more [00:50:00] like
a religion sometimes than a philosophy. But
at the same time, it's very robust when it
comes to arguing these things.
And so often, we argue about markets, and
choice, and competition and all of these things,
and people on the other side say, "Oh, well
that's just your view." But no, she's able
to rooted in something to say, "No, this is
actually all part of a salient system, and
it's a rational system." Very difficult for
people to argue against that.
Aaron Powel: [00:50:30] Free Thought is produced
by Tess Terrible. If you enjoyed today's show,
please rate and review us on iTunes. And if
you'd like to learn more about libertarianism,
find us on the web at www.Libertarianism.org.
