Tag Archive for 'ayn_rand'

Libertarian Reading List

Written by Colin. Published on March 4, 2009 ago in General. 9 Comments

As I gear up for a week of some travel and events, I thought I would make note of a few books that have been a huge influence in my life and my libertarian beliefs. Some of these books aren’t necessarily evangelically libertarian, but they had this effect on me!

But I don’t want this to be merely autobiographical. Perhaps you are a libertarian skeptic – and are looking for some books that might give you more information. Maybe you are hoping to shore up your own budding libertarian beliefs. Maybe you are a conservative who has the sneaking suspicion that some of your views are not consistent with each other. Maybe you are a liberal who is finally digging a little deeper and realising that the democrats good motives seem to regularly end with failed programs and consequences.

Either way, here are some great books:

The Fountainhead- Ayn Rand
What? Not Atlas Shrugged? Quite honestly, I found The Fountainhead much more of a mind-bender than Atlas. The Fountainhead is a philosophical narrative which generally stays out of hard economics and sort of “tough guy” capitalism and instead deals with art and the motivations for art. Atlas sometimes feels like a lecture from dad – the Fountainhead is your best friend showing you the coolest (and rebellious) ideas your parents never told you about.

Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
I received this book from my wife’s grandmother shortly after I had read The Fountainhead. The chapters are short and quick. The language is clear and so easy to read that at some point you’ll be half-way through the book and realise – “wait, this is a book about economics?”Hazlitt became an instant hero of mine after reading it. It led me away from the path of hard-line objectivism/conservatism and towards a more philosophical examination of my own beliefs. It quickly exposed some economic fallacies in my own thinking, and gave me a framework (as opposed to an ideological formula) for making critical observations about the world.

1984 – George Orwell
While I think 1984 is pure fantasy – that is – I have no fear of any state or government ever becoming like what we see in the book; 1984 does show how the State tends to wrap up the darkest, most evil realities in altruistic and benevolent language. It shows how easily people will give up freedom for security. It is basically a critique, not of totalitarianism or governments, but of the men who surrender their very essence for false promises of safety and peace.

Give Me a Break – John Stossel
This is quite a neat little book that takes several current issues and debates and boils them down to simple, pragmatic solutions. In direct contrast to Rand, Stossel tries to figure out what works. He cares a lot less about what is right. This makes it a great book for geeky/nerdy conservatives who like to fit square pegs into square holes – not blow up the little red Fischer Price box.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
Mill’s writings opened me up to the idea that certain political systems, even those founded on seemingly good principles, still have some flaws built in.  Mill deals with the famous “tyranny of the majority” which should help the left or right-wing reader see that even if he gets his perfect agenda supported by the majority – he may still not have the right to impose that agenda.

Defending The Undefendable by Walter Block
Walter Block is a neat man who likes to take economic principles and apply them in radical situations. While Economics in One Lesson applies economics to pretty standard stuff (taxes, wages, and so on), Block keeps the model, but looks at things like drugs, bribery, prostitution and so on. The examples in this book are more likely to appeal to the left, but with arguments and logic that seem more comparable to conservative rhetoric.

The Free Market Prevents Monopolies

Written by Colin. Published on July 30, 2008 ago in Essays and Politics. 5 Comments

Perhaps the moment where I was convinced of the validity of capitalism as a completely sustainable and self-regulating system was reading this article by former colleague of Ayn Rand Nathaniel Branden. My largest objection to the unfettered, and unregulated free-market, had been my concern that the greed and selfishness that capitalism uses for public benefit would eventually create a monopolistic society with large companies unable to be stopped. But as Branded wrote:

The question is often asked: What if a large, rich company kept buying out its smaller competitors or kept forcing them out of business by means of undercutting prices and selling at a loss—would it not be able to gain control of a given field and then start charging high prices and be free to stagnate with no fear of competition? The answer is: No, it would not be able to do it. If a company assumed heavy losses in order to drive out competitors then began to charge high prices to regain what it had lost, this would serve as an incentive for new competitors to enter the field and take advantage of the high profitability, without any losses to recoup. The new competitors would force prices down to the market level. The large company would have either to abandon its attempt to establish monopoly prices—or else go bankrupt fighting off the competitors its own polices would attract.

There are many other remedies the free market has to bring about equilibrium – and shift market power away from large companies: defection.

Imagine for a moment that you are working for a widget company which, because of innovation in production, enjoys a 90% share of the market. You are getting paid $200,000 a year and you basically run the widget making system. If those above you begin to profit at a greater and greater margin than your work profits, then at some point you will decide it is worth the risk to defect and either start your own widget company or join the 10% competitor.

Many innovations in industry have come about because of this market-made incentive. In fact, Google is about to face new competition from within their own ranks:

[Anna] Patterson instead intends to upstage Google, which she quit in 2006 to develop a more comprehensive and efficient way to scour the Internet… Cuil had kept a low profile while Patterson, her husband, Tom Costello, and two other former Google engineers – Russell Power and Louis Monier – searched for better ways to search. …Patterson believes that’s at least three times the size of Google’s index, although there is no way to know for certain. Google stopped publicly quantifying its index’s breadth nearly three years ago when the catalog spanned 8.2 billion Web pages.

As Google grew larger, and made more and more money (by fulfilling customers wants and need at a better price and with better quality) their threat from competition also grew. That’s right, as a company comes closer and closer to monopoly, they will have a harder and harder time maintaining it – just the opposite of what many who support anti-monopoly legislation proclaim.

This offshoot of Google will be three times the size of its brother company, and possibly obtain even more profit. All of this to the benefit of consumers who can basically sit back and watch while the dollars stay in their pocket (from cheaper prices) and the products are made in greater abundance and with a higher quality.

Capitalism, if left to its own devices, with no regulation from government, will constantly move towards balance and fairness in business transactions. That even includes one of the greatest spectres invented to promote government intervention: monopolies.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Written by Kenneth Martens. Published on June 25, 2008 ago in Politics and Religion. 37 Comments
This entry is part 2 of 5 in the series Christian libertarianism

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

  • Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
  • Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

  • Anarchy = no government
  • Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

  • I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
  • I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.