If Rand is talking about moral right, she is still only definitionally asserting, in a moral sense, that people have no right to a job but do have "the Rights of man"--whatever that may be. By similar definition, one could say exactly the opposite, and could call almost any human right moral, immoral, or non-moral. Since "moral" merely means what is best for the community in the long run, to assert that her principals are best in the long run requires proof that she cannot give since her system, by her own admission, has never existed at all. To assert one's policy is good because it is good is tautological and religious in nature. If any inalienable moral rights exist, no one, including Rand, unequivocally has shown what they are.
e. All human "rights," then, including the "rights" to enjoy a fair wage, to receive a fair price, to consume goods are conditional, limited, and self-imposed--as long as people live in social groups. For these rights are group rules. It is clearly the group that "gives" rights to the individual and can take them away. For Rand and her objectivist followers to set up as "true" and inalienable the one particular "right" which we call the "right of free trade" is patently definitional --merely an assertion, not a proof. Alfred Korzybski would have called that claim an arrant overgeneralization! In his view, Rand and the objectivists would be "unsane" since they are ignoring reality in choosing a fanciful universe, (Korzybski, 1933).
When Rand says that humans are human because they "possess the unassailable right of free trade," she really means, "Because I, Ayn Rand, say you possess the unassailable right of free trade and are human because of it." She can muster no empirical evidence why you must have this right (although she may present some evidence that it would be desirable if you did have it). Therefore, she really is tautologically stating: "You have the right of free trade because you have the right of free trade." Similarly, all the other basic economic "rights" which she insists that people possess have no basis in objective fact or logic.
2. Rand defines all the disadvantages of capitalism as being caused by non-capitalistic governmental control. Thus, she) states that according to historical facts, all the evils popularly ascribed to capitalism were caused, necessitated and made possible, only by government controls imposed on the economy. (1961b). Check the facts and you will discover whether or not free trade of government controls was responsible for the alleged iniquities of capitalism. When you hear that capitalism has had its chance and failed, remember that what ultimately failed was a "mixed" capitalist economy. Controls caused its failure. We can save only save capitalism by not forcing it to swallow a full, "unmixed glass of the poison which is killing it."
This is ridiculous for several reasons:
a. Rand holds that pure capitalism has never existed, but only a "mixed" capitalist economy; and yet she dogmatically states that all the evils in this "mixed" economy were caused, necessitated and made possible only by the non-capitalistic parts of the mixture. She presumes that the evils in a mixed capitalist economy are necessarily caused by the controlled or "non-capitalistic" elements of this economy.
b. Rand does not even consider the possibility that capitalism itself causes evils, and that non-capitalist controls may ameliorate these evils. She says we should check the facts and discover which of the two opposite political principles--free trade or government controls--was responsible for capitalism's alleged failure. But she presents no facts.
c. Ayn Rand seems to mean that capitalism is good because it is good and that government control is bad because it is bad. She states that a mixed glass of poison is killing capitalism and that the poison is government control. Why? Well, because she claims that the poison is governmental control.
d. Rand's complete syllogism seems to be: "Capitalism is entirely good and government control is entirely bad; contemporary capitalist economy has a considerable amount of government control mixed in with pure and holy capitalism; therefore anything that is wrong with contemporary capitalism must be in the government controls which made it into an unholy mixture."
e. The claim could just as easily be made by communists: When you hear that collectivism has had its chance and has failed, remember that what ultimately failed was a "mixed" world economy. Not enough controls caused its failure. We can save only save collectivism by not forcing it to swallow a full, "unmixed glass of the poison which is killing it."
3. Rand's view of money is quite definitional and almost entirely divorced from reality. Thus, her hero, Francisco d'Anconia states in Atlas Shrugged, "The code of good men is to trade by means of money. But money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort," (1957). If you have money, no power can prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of people who are willing to trade you their effort. Only money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor products that you want from others. Only deals that are mutually beneficial by the unforced judgment of the traders are permitted by money.
More assertions! Real fiction! In fact, just as it has been said that Ayn Rand's novels read like non-fictional philosophic tracts, it could even more justifiably be said that her non-fictional writings read like romantic fiction! Some tautological, anti-empirical statements in the above quotations are these:
a. People of good will may or may not trade by means of money, since there are various other ways they can trade. Ayn Rand apparently posits, however, that if you trade by money you are, by that very fact, a person of good will. By definition, rather than by any empirical evidence, she makes trade and good will equivalent.
b. Money certainly does not rest on the axiom that every person is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money is merely paper or metal with a symbol that represents labor and/or materials for which you can trade it. It is used because it is easier to trade by means of money than by means of barter, and because it is often more efficient to use money than to try to exchange goods directly for services.
c. The axiom that all people are the owner of their mind and effort is purely definitional and unrelated to reality. Actually, every human seems to learn and to think and to gain from his work largely through the collaborative and cultural help of others.
d. Perhaps in a free market of productive (that is, angelic) traders, money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the person who is willing to trade you his effort in return. But under real capitalism you can use money for barter and still coerce another into trading with you, and doing so to his disadvantage, because you threaten him physically, blackmail him, refuse to approve of him, or otherwise constrain him.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
