Objectivism and the Austrians
There does seem to be a growing literature that argues for the compatibility of Misesianism and Randianism, with Heidi C. Morris's new piece as the latest entry: "The Logical Compatibility of Austrian Economics and Objectivist Ethics": Part 1 and Part 2. It not only a matter of urging a greater degree of mutual understanding but an argument concerning theoretical linkages. Too much has been made of apparent differences--Apriorism vs. empiricism, subjectivism vs. objectivism, value neutrality vs. prescriptive morality. This literature says that these difference reduce in importance once terms and concepts are more carefully defined.
Ed Younkins, George Reisman, Roderick Long, and Chris Sciabarra have been a leaders in this area, but for a sampling of the range of thought here, see the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
Comments (28)
Didn't some Randroids advocate the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East - presumably to embolden man's heroic struggle against those who think that A and not-A?
If so, then who cares if there is some common ground to be had - there are probably some flat Eathers who think that private property is a good thing, that doesn't mean we need to be seen at the same parties.
Published: May 16, 2005 8:58 AM
The fallacious reasoning in the previous commentor's post is astounding. Very collectivist in fact, ascribing the behavior of some to the entire group; in this case, simply because some "Randroids" are crazy Hawks, therefore all Objectivists and neo-Objevtivists must be as well so we should not be seen with them at the same parties. Sheesh! You know...that sort of talk actually reminds me of Ayn Rand herself in her worse moments towards the end of her life. But, of course, just because Rand didn't fully live up to her own philosophy is no reason to dismiss the philosophy or even Rand herself.
Published: May 16, 2005 9:24 AM
I would add, for clarification, that "Objectivism" and self-proclaimed "Objectivists" are two very different things.
It is entirely possible for no existing Objectivists to actually be true to principles of Objectivism as formulated by Rand.
So you have to judge those principles on their own merits, regardless of the character of those who claim allegiance to them.
Otherwise, there would be a good case against Libertarianism itself, for certainly many of us are lame fools.
Published: May 16, 2005 10:09 AM
I doubt it is possible to be true to the principles of "Objectivism" as formulated by Rand, as there are internal contradictions.
Further, it says something about the "philosophy" that most of the followers are lunatics.
Published: May 16, 2005 10:36 AM
I see the problem as one of going from the ideal to the real. You can posit objective morality (like Aristotle and Aquinas), but then what is the application. First, can you construct a society, second, what are the practical policy decisions.
Most Randites don't see a problem with Abortion, but some do and reason from the same principles.
Austrian Economics is objective and compatible with objective morality, but it predicts economic values will be subjective. This is not a flaw, but a classification. You and I might feel differently about some foods or plants and value them differently because of our feelings, not because of any property of the food or plant.
Published: May 16, 2005 11:29 AM
Don't objectivists support welfare for Israel? Sounds very un-Austrian to me.
Published: May 16, 2005 5:19 PM
Please excuse the fact that the following comment addresses the explanation of a priori theory (or lack thereof) rather than the main subject of the article.
I continue to be frustrated with virtually all Austrian books and articles regarding the lack of emphasis and a clear explanation of a priori theory. The explanations offered by Ms Morris in her articles are no exception as they seem vague and esoteric.
Hans Hoppe's books and articles are the only exceptions to this that I've been exposed to. In fact, it was not until I read the introduction to Democracy: The God that Failed, that I finally - and - instantly understood what the Austrians meant by a priori theory. Immediately, the superiority of the Austrian methodology became clear to me. Maybe I'm just a bit dense, but prior to reading Hoppe's explanation, the a priori concept, as explained by others, meant little or nothing to me.
Hoppe immediately clarifies a priori theory by providing real world examples of what it means in practice. For instance, other things being equal, people prefer satisfaction now to satisfaction later, they prefer more of an identical good rather than less, they try to give up (pay) as little as possible in exchange for obtaining as much as possible, etc.
As Hoppe explains, this is how we can state, with complete confidence, for example, that a minimum wage law must result in less employment that would have been the case if this law didn't exist. Or, that higher taxes and government regulations have resulted in the production of goods and services being less than what they would have been relative to lower taxes and fewer regulations or, better yet, no taxes or regulations at all.
For me at least, a priori theory, more than anything else, is what differentiates Austrian Economics from the positivist/empirical method. However, Hoppe notwithstanding, I continue to believe that a very poor job of explaining this incredibly useful theory is being done.
I welcome any and all intelligent and civil comments.
Published: May 16, 2005 5:55 PM
I think it's the case that differences aren't so great, for the reason that Objectivism isn't quite as unique as Randians claim it to be.
Published: May 16, 2005 6:48 PM
Ron,
I'm glad you were able to grok Hoppe's explanation. It's easy to miss the train of deductive logic from a priori axioms in Austrian books and articles sometimes, mostly because Austrian economists take the established deductions as given and move on from there. Most of the books mentioned here will take you through the process as developed by the greats, particularly Man, Economy, and State.
Published: May 16, 2005 9:50 PM
A side comment on "action" being purely human:
modern ethology (science of animal behaviour) uses very economics-like notions (talking about costs and strategies and extensively using game-theoretical methods). It turns out that evolutionary-developed "instinctive" programs driving animal behavior are quite rational, considering that their "goal" is to improve reproduction and survival.
It was shown recently that some animal engage in mutually beneficial trades, like humans do. The barrier between us and animals is not solid.
Given the success of evolutionary ethological models in quantitative prediction of animal behaviors, it may be a worthwhile idea for economists to apply these methods to the economic behavior of human societies.
Published: May 16, 2005 10:04 PM
Mr. Plauche--are you aware of any prominent Objectivist who is outspoken in opposition to war, in particular the Iraq war; and who has reacted publicly in horror at the "nuke the Arabs and even innocent civilians" comments of various prominent Objectivists? I am aware of many who are silent. But who publicly and clearly oppose the crazies? Can you name any? This is not rhetorical; I wonder who they might be, if any.
Published: May 16, 2005 11:59 PM
As I've argued before the greatest similarity between Misesian economics and Objectivism is in epistemology/methodology: embracing the axiomatic-deductive method of deriving theories. Objectivist epistemology can easily be used to defend praxeology. Rand's rejection of "apriorism" seem to be derived from her equating it with innate ideas.
Regarding the ARI:s support for nuking the Middle East (except for of course the home country of the new ARI boss)this can be clearly be shown to violate fundamental principles of Objectivism, such as the rejection of iniation of force and collectivism.
As for Randians who oppose the Iraq war I think Tibor Machan and Chris Matthew Sciabarra are two good examples.
Published: May 17, 2005 3:06 AM
Re Sciabarra and Machan: well, you may have found two. is Sciabarra really an Objectivist...? I don't think of him that way. And while I would think Machan is at least a semi- or neo-Objectivist, and probably against the Iraq war, I am not sure if he has publicly written this... and if he has published any opposition to the idea that it's okay to kill civilians-by-nuke in certain cases. Are you aware of anything Machan has published along these lines?
Published: May 17, 2005 2:51 PM
Unfortunately, economics is not theoretical physics, much less mathematics. So-called a priori theory is flawed for the simple reason that assertions are not axioms, and Hoppe's argument that only a "confused" person would seek to test the "axioms" he presents is nothing short of sophistry.
In mathematical analysis, axioms are generally little more than definitions. To arrive at any conclusions, such as that "taxes... reduce production and/or wealth below what it otherwise would have been," one must first prove such a result logically. But, in this case, I don't see how this could be done. Indeed, to deny any kind of empiricism (distinguished from positivism), as Mises tried to, is to consign social science to a level of inquiry on par with astrology.
Hoppe (and indeed, all so-called Austrian economics) conflates assertions with mathematical axioms. In fact, the only self-evident a priori axiom concerning this issue would be as follows:
"Economics is not mathematics and, even if it were, assertions must be proven and can always be tested."
Most of the so-called axioms depart from simple definitions and, even when they are merely definitional, they are hardly true a priori to potential objections to their usage.
Published: May 17, 2005 5:16 PM
Excellent point, Stephan. As I pointed out in a recent article, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, appeared last December on The O’Reilly Factor and called for "harsher military measures in Iraq." He wanted the military to "be a lot more brutal," "bring this war to the civilians," and "turn Fallujah into dust."
Published: May 18, 2005 7:55 AM
Josh, it would seem you don't know the first thing about Austrian method or theory, I would suggest you figure out what you are talking about before you start talking. For starters, find an axiom used by Austrians that you dispute.
Published: May 18, 2005 9:56 AM
Tibor Machan opposes the war here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/machan/machan13.html
He has also repeatedly made the case against the war on SoloHQ and other places.
Stephen Kinsella may not view Sciabarra as an Objectivist but Sciabarra seems to view himself as one.
Arthur Silber is another well known anti-war Objectivist.
Published: May 19, 2005 8:59 AM
sorry, StephAn not StephEn.
Published: May 19, 2005 9:04 AM
Pete Canning writes:
"For starters, find an axiom used by Austrians that you dispute."
One need not actually be in dispute with any of the axioms in order to hold that they are in principle disputable. Austrians too often make the mistake of conflating truth with certainty.
Published: May 19, 2005 9:15 AM
Paul Coulan,
Help me to understand how "One need not actually be in dispute with any of the axioms in order to hold that they are in principle diputable".
How does one agree with every factor that makes up the whole, but then be in disagreement with the whole?
Ron Brown
Published: May 19, 2005 9:41 AM
RUDYARD KIPLING
1865-1936
A delightfully entertaining poem by Kipling discusses such subjective/objective reality through time which some at this site may enjoy.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and
race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-
place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and
fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast
them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us
each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly
burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth
of mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed
The March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their
pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the
Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently
word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights
had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were
utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she
was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a
pig had wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised
these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promi-
ised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of
the tribe would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us
bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook headings said 'Stick to
the Devil you know.'
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the
Fuller life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by
loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost
reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:'The Wages
sin is Death.'
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance
for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul:
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing
our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'If you don't
work you die.'
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-
tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to
believe it was true
That all is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two
make Four-
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to
explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man-
There are only four things certain since Social Progress
began:-
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to
her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back
to the Fire;
And that after this is accoumplished, and the brave new
world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay
for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and
slaughter return!
By Rudard Kipling from Selections published again in 1986 (England)
Published: May 19, 2005 12:56 PM
While there are some similarities between the general philosophical orientation of Austrian economists and Rand's philosophy, it is going too far to claim that they are compatible.
Morris's article stresses, for example, the methodological parallels between deductions based on Rand's axioms and deductions based on Mises's a priori insights. However, this doesn't gainsay the fact that Austrians have a broader conception of what self-evident truths are; standard Austrians ideas concerning natural causation and human purposefulness and foresight cannot be derived from Rand's axiom set. There is more than just a difference in terminology here in their treatment of self-evident truths.
Another key difference is evident in their respective views of the foundations of a market society. Austrians stress that many aspects of institutions like the market are not the product of a particular plan, but rather is the unplanned, spontaneous result of many different actors pursuing many different plans in a specific social context.
This context consists of laws and customs relating to values like private property, contracts, and sound money. Capitalism doesn't require a culture committed to any particular worldview or value hierarchy, as long as there is some convergence of values in support of private ownership, etc.
In sharp contrast to this, Rand and Peikoff argued that a social order is necessarily the result of an ideological struggle; moreover, the ideas that really matter in this struggle are those relating to philosophical foundations, as other kinds of ideas supposedly develop from the foundations as an unfolding of the inner logic of those foundations. The clear implication of this is that conscious intention is paramount in creating the social order.
Thus, Randians conclude that capitalism is only secure if certain fundamental philosophical principles, namely their own, are dominating the culture. This makes Randians extraordinarily touchy about any unRandian idea being associated with the advocacy of capitalism. The cult-like aspects of Randianism that Austrians like Rothbard have found so objectionable are rooted in the Randian philosophy itself.
Finally, there is an irreconcilable difference between a Mises or a Rothbard advocating respect for the rights of all non-aggressors, and Rand arguing that foreigners who have the misfortune to live under the wrong kind of government have no rights that the American state is bound to respect. With such doctrines, Rand's philosophy serves as a rationalization for mass murder; Randianism is a long ways from fully incorporating the Austrian insight that respecting the rights of others is of fundamental importance to advancing one's own egoistic interests.
Published: May 19, 2005 4:06 PM
Isn't Kipling the guy who wrote, "The White Man's Burden?"
I pointed out an ad hominem attack in another post, I'd have to admit that this-my comment-is one as well, but I guess I'm a bit unclear on what Kipling's point is. And, in advance, I have to say that I doubt his motives.
Published: May 20, 2005 9:30 PM
Old Whig
No, it was Malcomn X who wrote "The White Mans Burden". And he was gunned down by zelots from his own group.
Published: May 21, 2005 1:51 AM
My apologies for not responding earlier. I’ve been taking my final exams for the semester and have been so busy that I didn’t even see this blog post until it was pointed out to me.
First I’d like to point out that I’m not strictly an Objectivist. I’m sympathetic to Objectivism and I do think that it’s possible to be both an Austrian economist and an Objectivist, but I reject the Objectivist label and only accept the Austrian one in its simplest form. The more research I did for this paper the more I realized there are certain social stigmas associated with Objectivism that I don’t wan associated with me.
Pete said: “I doubt it is possible to be true to the principles of "Objectivism" as formulated by Rand, as there are internal contradictions.� Would you care to specify? I’m not asking for a full defense, just curious WHICH contradictions you refer to.
TZ said: “I see the problem as one of going from the ideal to the real.� I agree. Hence the attempt by Hoppe and others to bridge the mind-body gap. But really, this is a philosophical problem, not an economic one.
Ron Brown said: “I continue to be frustrated with virtually all Austrian books and articles regarding the lack of emphasis and a clear explanation of a priori theory. The explanations offered by Ms Morris in her articles are no exception as they seem vague and esoteric.� I’m confused about your complaint, since I used Hoppe as one of my main sources for the definition of a priori reasoning. (In Part II.)
Neil Paraille said: “I think it's the case that differences aren't so great, for the reason that Objectivism isn't quite as unique as Randians claim it to be.� I can only say that I agree with you completely. Objectivism is, in my mind, a modern extension of Aristotle’s work. (But I’m no philosopher.)
Stefan Karlsson said: “Rand's rejection of "apriorism" seem to be derived from her equating it with innate ideas.� Exactly my complaint about it. If apriorism is more than just reasoning, abstract from reality, then there should be no conflict. Hence, Objectivism and Austrian economics might be theoretically compatible.
Published: May 22, 2005 11:48 AM
Rolf --
In addition to having inexcusably bad spelling, you're also wrong about "The White Man's Burden," which Kipling did write. (you may have a point on Malcolm X, though -- too many people forget this) See here.
-- Lowell R.
Published: May 22, 2005 4:53 PM
Lowell R.
Thank you for the link. The bad spelling is inexcusable. I should be spanked.
Lowell R.
Wrote.: (you may have a point on Malcolm X, Though--too many people forget this.)
Shot down by zealots for preaching about "The White Man's Burdens,".
Published: May 23, 2005 12:20 AM
Heidi said: "I'm confused about your complaint, since I used Hoppe as one of my main sources for the definition of a priori reasoning. (In Part II.)"
I ask that you go back and read my "complaint" again, especially the third and forth paragraphs.
Regardless of what other explanations Hoppe uses for a priori theory, he always explains it in plain English also. I view this as very valuable to the thousands of intelligent layman (such as myself) that regularly read these articles. Until the a priori theory is understood with practical terms and examples I think it's difficult to see the fundamental difference between the Austrian method and the empiricist/positivist method.
Published: May 23, 2005 10:03 AM