update: Objectivism and War by Neil Parille

Randian Dislikes Me

by Stephan Kinsella on December 9, 2009

in Uncategorized

Following up on my earlier post, several readers wrote me about my query about the Randian comments that a large government is okay in some cases. Jeff Keller writes:

I think the originator of that quote was Roger Donway (from David Kelley’s Atlas Society/TOC, not the Ayn Rand Institute). He wrote…

“Limited government” means a government restricted to certain purposes, namely, the defense of individual rights; “small government” means a government that absorbs a small percentage of the gross national product. If a country has been invaded, its government might absorb 50 percent or more of the nation’s product to mount a defense—and yet remain a “limited government” in the relevant sense. Conversely, a government that abandons its military and police missions might spend very little of the national output, but if it spends that little on health, education, and welfare, it is not a “limited government.”

The above is from a piece called Government, Yes! Leviathan, No!”

I recall hearing David Kelley make a similar point: that smallness of government isn’t the primary concern, but whether it functions within its legitimate authority (Kelley, et al.’s view of legitimacy, of course). That was at the 1999 TOC Summer Seminar, which I attended. I think it was during a debate Kelley had with Randy Barnett over anarchism vs. minarchism, but I wouldn’t swear to it.

In The Libertarians’ Albatross, Butler Shaffer recalls John Hospers who “recently wrote that ‘voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do,’ and that ‘a continued Bush presidency . . . might well succeed in preserving Western civilization.’ Kerry ‘will weaken our military establishment,’ he went on, quoting favorably from a statement made by Rand, in 1962, to the effect that paying 80% for taxes was justified ‘if you need it for defense.'”

As Stan Lee used to say: ’nuff said.

Update: See also Anthony Gregory’s skewering of Randian statism (including the 80% tax remark) in The Ideal Randian State.

From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A:

If we go to war with Russia, I hope the “innocent” are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren’t many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent.

This goes beyond merely tolerating collateral damage; it’s actively calling for it. I guess it should be no surprise there is an Objectivist article entitled No Apologies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess when Rand vociferously denounced libertarianism, there was a reason. (Roderick Long also discussed Rand’s “war” remark on the HNN Liberty & Power blog a couple years ago.)

It’s remarkable–given that Rand was such an outspoken proponent of individual rights–how many people she would appear to view as having no rights or radically curtailed rights: “savages” like the Native Americans and other nomads (so it was okay for Americans to kill them and conquer them), and Arabs (so American oil companies “really” owned the oil their technology helped discover under Arabian soil); Germans and Japanese during wartime; “innocent” Russian citizens during the Cold War; and who knows what rights she would have attributed to anarcho-libertarians (I think she called us the “hippies of the right“), draft dodgers and pacifists!

I stumbled across Rand’s observations on war while looking for a comment I’ve read in the past but am now unable to locate. The comment was by an Objectivist, perhaps Peikoff or Binswanger, and went something like this: Libertarians are wrong to favor “small” government; in certain situations, e.g. war or defense from an invasion, it could be appropriate for the government to consume more than half the GDP, if necessary. (If you know who made the comment or its location, please let me know.)

Update: see Ayn Rand Endorses Big Government; also Roderick Long, Randians on the Warpath.

With obscure terms like emphyteusis and jactitation, the language of Louisiana’s civil law can sometimes be confusing for students and even for seasoned practitioners. But the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary can help. It defines every word and phrase contained in the index to the Louisiana Civil Code, plus many more–in clear and concise language–and provides current citations to the relevant statutes, code articles, and cases.  Soon available in paperback, hardback and ebook formats linked below. The dictionary’s dedicated website is here.

Whether you are a student, researcher, lawyer, or judge, if you deal with Louisiana and its laws, this volume will proveindispensable. It is also a valuable resource for notaries and paralegal assistants. No doubt common law practitioners in other states, too, will find ready uses for a dictionary that translates civil law terminology into familiar concepts; they will know how ‘naked ownership’ is different from ‘usufruct.’ And since the civil law dominates the world’s legal systems, this book will find a home with libraries and scholars anywhere there is a need to compare civil law terms with those of the common law.

Quality ebook formatting from Quid Pro Books features active contents, linked notes and URLs, and hundreds of linked cross-references for ready association of related topics. Print editions are available of this valuable resource, yet the ebook format is not just a textual replication of the print book or a PDF; instead, the ebook is carefully designed to take full advantage of the digital ereader’s optimal arrangements and hyperlinks.

“Rome and Kinsella have done a huge service to legal scholarship by assembling the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary — a splendid resource for those seeking to understand the rich vocabulary of Louisiana law.”
— Bryan A. Garner, President, LawProse, Inc.; and Editor in Chief, Black’s Law Dictionary

“For ready reference on the desk or in a personal or law firm library, in the office of a civilian of any walk of practice or intellectual endeavor, this enormously helpful dictionary is a must. This scholarly reference is essential to the study of the civil law tradition; the Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary serves as a gateway to understanding the civil law system embraced by the majority of legal systems in the world.”
— J. Lanier Yeates, Member, Gordon Arata McCollam Duplantis & Eagan, LLC

AVAILABLE NOW in ebook and print formats:

Amazon for Kindle.

B&N for Nook.

Also available directly on Apple iBooks and iTunes for iPad and iPhone, as well as Kindle and Nook apps.

Available in paperback edition, including from our eStore page with fulfillment by Amazon; at the general Amazon site; and at other booksellers. Library-quality hardcover edition also available from Amazon, B&N, Dawson Books, Ingram catalog and Baker & Taylor (listed in the library catalogs as of Aug. 15). Please contact us for discounts on bulk adoptions.

ISBNs include: 9781610270830 (ePub) and 9781610270878 (hardcover)

David C July 10, 2011 at 11:03 am

US bureaucrats amaze me. So many of them apparently have the moral dignity to refuse a direct bribe, but when it comes to attacking and imposing a frivolous and useless burdens on otherwise honest citizens, they think nothing of it. Not to mention their elected bosses, take regular publicly documented campaign contributions.

Makes me wonder if Mexico isn’t more free than the USA is. Even though they take bribes, it’s almost sure to cost less than the US regulations and taxes, and their official government spending is less than 20% of GDP.

REPLY

J. Murray July 11, 2011 at 12:49 pm

You should see the gift rules for federal workers. Uncle Sam will throw a hissy fit if a worker accepts a $21 shirt, but allowing Congressmen to collect $5,000 per donor is no big deal.

REPLY

Walt D. July 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm

Excellent article Stephan.
The hypocrisy of the US Government in this area is so brazen.
I watched “Frontline Season 27, Ep. 11 “Black Money”” (on Amazon Instant Video).
They were complaining about a Saudi Prince who was using a government plane for personal use! His major “crime” was to paint the plane in Dallas Cowboy colors! (I don’t think he used it to play golf or visit people to collect bribes – err “campaign contributions”.)