I’m a big Ayn Rand fan and used to be an Objectivist, that is, someone who believes that knowledge is gained through reason, that it is universally objective (as opposed to subjective), and that (amongst other things) man’s (and women’s) rational self-interest is in pursuing laissez-faire (hands-off) capitalism. Then I came to realise that ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’ can be defined in any way you wish to suit your own purposes. More so, I came to realise that Objectivism is a closed philosophy tightly held together by a group of middle-aged male zealots who ostracise insiders that dare criticise the philosophy. Oh well…

Now laissez-faire capitalism is a philosophy and practice I strongly hold true for reasons I shall discuss in a later post. I also believe in ethical egoism (people do actions based on self-interest). So how does one retain some views one holds to be true, and reject others in the face of better argued views? One finds philosophies with distinct but subtle variations on the theme. After reading readings on John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (no one can claim to have read that unreadable book), and thereby discovering Robert Nozick’s ingenious work Anarchy, State, and Utopia, I slowly became a libertarian. Libertarianism is actually not that much different from Objectivism (there are distinct differences though - for instance whether a state has a right to meddle in another state’s affairs), however its principles and structure are well argued (and heavily criticised by both left and right). The best and most coherent work on the subject is Milton Friedman’s classic Capitalism and Freedom, which brilliantly, critically, and realistically argues for freedom and thus the free market. It’s one of those rare academic works that is not argued from cloud cuckoo land, but based on reality. The book is so good that you won’t find it in any bookshop (well at least where I come from) so you’ll have to buy it online. (Noam Chomsky’s left-wing pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo overflows on the shelves though).

I won’t go into the merits and demerits of Libertarianism in this post, or how it differs from Conservatism or Objectivism, but just say that it argues for greater social and economic freedom in society. It says that less government and laws is good, but does not come from a naïve standpoint and faces some harsh realities and consequences of its implementation.

posted by rowanp at 11:19 am & filed under ranting, philosophy |