tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post5641216804728724362..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: The Latest Rand BashingGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-90543519023995831462007-09-13T20:27:00.000-06:002007-09-13T20:27:00.000-06:00"[A] letter the editor maybe in order."Good! The m..."[A] letter the editor maybe in order."<BR/><BR/>Good! The more, the better!<BR/><BR/>And thank you for leaving your further thoughts here. <BR/><BR/>This woman's approach to smearing is like Mel Brooks' approach to humor: toss out everything you can come up with and hope something sticks. You could write a book in rebuttal to this hatchet job.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-61424686163346149672007-09-13T20:14:00.000-06:002007-09-13T20:14:00.000-06:00I also read this essay today and was delighted to ...I also read this essay today and was delighted to see that the author noted correctly that libertarianism takes the moral view “do whatever you want.” <BR/><BR/>But then, as a typical conservative is wont to do, she goes on to essentially criticize the libertarians for not recognizing that capitalism is based on “tradition” and “family values.”<BR/><BR/>Here’s just a few examples:<BR/><BR/>* [About a particular libertarian she spotlights]: “He has read his Max Weber and knows that middle-class norms are the indispensable cultural infrastructure of free-market economics; he appreciates the irony that, without Protestant self-discipline and respectability, Americans would not be enjoying their Napa Chardonnay and Internet porn.”<BR/><BR/>What are those “norms”? All she offers is “self-discipline” or “self-responsibility.” <BR/><BR/>* “The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital—that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive, and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.”<BR/><BR/>What great morals and what traditions? Again, she mentions virtually nothing beyond what I mentioned just above. And what are the ideas of these married parents? Traditionalism, in whatever form, I guess. <BR/><BR/>* “Children do not come into the world respecting private property. They do not emerge from the womb ready to navigate the economic and moral complexities of an ‘age of abundance.’ The only way they learn such things is through a long process of intensive socialization—a process that we now know, thanks to the failed experiments begun by the Aquarians and implicitly supported by libertarians, usually requires intact families and decent schools."<BR/><BR/>“Socialization,” i.e. conformity, leads to a respect for private property rights? What makes schools “decent”? I guess that they primarily aim to “socialize” children. <BR/><BR/>Oh, brother! And this is presented as an alternative to libertarianism, an intellectual and political movement that the author does not, and mostly likely cannot, identify as essentially amoral and thus anarchist. <BR/><BR/>Libertarians are all over the map, including offering “traditionalism” and religion as a basis for capitalism. But you won’t find that in this essay. <BR/><BR/>As to the author tying Rand to libertarianism, calling her a “guru” of the movement, those that have a basic, clear understanding of her philosophy could not write the following mistakenly (and, note again, the author’s focus on “the family”):<BR/> <BR/>“Libertarianism was complicit, too, in the vociferous attack during the 1960’s on the bourgeois family. After all, blood relationships are involuntary, and parents with any interest in rearing and educating their children are unlikely to look for guidance in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was predictably wary of kinship ties and, like radical feminists, saw the family as a soul-killing prison.”<BR/><BR/>The paragraph continues, but that’s all she has to say about Miss Rand. Notice that there’s no explanation for her comments about her. I guess you’re suppose to assume that there no parenting presented in Atlas Shrugged, despite that Galt’s speech is a fundamental guide for life, including childrearing. And what evidence is there for writing that Ayn Rand was “wary of kinship ties” and believe the family is a “soul-killing prison”? There isn’t any such evidence, that’s why. I guess I should be happy she doesn't attempt to provide any, otherwise this post would be longer. <BR/><BR/>I'll end here by saying that, once again, Commentary has smeared Ayn Rand, by allowing such nonsensical comments and by linking her with libertarianism. I think a letter the editor maybe in order.Joseph Kellardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792444138935346026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21268673282293649832007-09-13T20:00:00.000-06:002007-09-13T20:00:00.000-06:00Thanks for the linkage, Jenn. I stopped by earlier...Thanks for the linkage, Jenn. <BR/><BR/>I stopped by earlier today and saw what you mentioned. I'm glad you raised that issue as that's a whole other dimension of how people who think reason and emotions are incompatible like to slam Objectivism.<BR/><BR/>As I said earlier, there was way too much wrong to deal with it all at once.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-41583279931845607702007-09-13T19:52:00.000-06:002007-09-13T19:52:00.000-06:00Awesome. I am sending my readers over here to rea...Awesome. I am sending my readers over here to read your excellent piece. <BR/><BR/>I posted a quick bit about it, too, focusing on the entirely unnecessary snarky lie about how Ayn Rand considered families "soul-killing prisons." Where in the world did that come from? I'll be sending in a LTE, just for fun, too.<BR/><BR/>When I can chill out enough to read the entire piece with a coherent mind, I intend to blog more about it. This needs fighting.Jenn Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07849654785544313839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-4291379388159353752007-09-13T12:06:00.000-06:002007-09-13T12:06:00.000-06:00"[I]f Rand's work is allowed to stand on its own, ..."[I]f Rand's work is allowed to stand on its own, it blows to smithereens her equation of individual rights with amoral whim-worship."<BR/><BR/>Excellent point, as is your notice of the conservative desire to expand the welfare state.<BR/><BR/>There was so much wrong with this article I hardly knew were to start. I decided to home in on the fundamental error. Otherwise, there was just too much to address and too little time to do so.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-44089842468735249272007-09-13T11:49:00.000-06:002007-09-13T11:49:00.000-06:00Spot on, Gu.The only thing I would add, as I said ...Spot on, Gu.<BR/><BR/>The only thing I would add, as I said on the Volokh Conspiracy and in a letter to OpinionJournal, is that the reason Hymowitz lumps Rand in with the libertarians is because if Rand's work is allowed to stand on its own, it blows to smithereens her equation of individual rights with amoral whim-worship. <BR/><BR/>With that gone, her article's payload -- the tired old conservative shibboleth that too much freedom is a threat to the family -- would be exposed for the rationalization of expanding government power exposed for what it is.<BR/><BR/>And she can't have that. After all, that Hymowitz' criticisms of the libertarians echoes Rand's own doesn't make the former appear too forthcoming, does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com