religion Archives — Laissez FaireLaissez Faire

If you would like to ask me a question, you can submit it here.

From the essay “Conservatism: An Obituary,” in Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

The “neo-conservatives” are now trying to tell us that America was the product of “faith in revealed truths” and of uncritical respect for the traditions of the past (!).

It is certainly irrational to use the “new” as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the “old” as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc.—and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress—while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.

The plea to preserve “tradition” as such, can appeal only to those who have given up or to those who never intended to achieve anything in life. It is a plea that appeals to the worst elements in men and rejects the best: it appeals to fear, sloth, cowardice, conformity, self-doubt—and rejects creativeness, originality, courage, independence, self-reliance. It is an outrageous plea to address to human beings anywhere, but particularly outrageous here, in America, the country based on the principle that man must stand on his own feet, live by his own judgment, and move constantly forward as a productive, creative innovator.

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

You can listen to Yaron’s latest appearance on Leonard Peikoff’s podcast here. Topics include:

• Trade with China
• Changing the minds of liberals
• Is Israel a theocracy?
• Is it too late to change the culture?

A Wall Street Journal op-ed published over the weekend argues that, probably understood, Catholicism—specifically, the moral commandment to help the poor—is inconsistent with calls for government wealth redistribution.

Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution.

But this argument can’t stand up to scrutiny, as I’ve discussed before:

It’s a plausible argument for anyone who believes that being moral means personally choosing to do the right thing. Does a person who helps others because the government forces him to really deserve moral credit? But here’s the problem. This argument puts the emphasis on the moral character of the giver rather than the need of the receiver. Altruism, though, says that what matters in life is other people’s need: their need is a god you have to serve regardless of the effect on you—materially or spiritually.

Imagine a society without an entitlement state. Sure, many people would receive aid through voluntary charity. But if the government stepped in then they would receive even more aid, right? Well, if their need is the standard, then on what possible basis could an altruist object? On the grounds that he wants to get moral credit for his sacrifices? How utterly selfish!

What is the connection between the Declaration of Independence and laissez-faire capitalism? Why are businessmen such as Mitt Romney so bad at defending the profit system? How is philosophy—a subject most people regard as an ivory tower subject that has nothing to do with practical reality—shaping the current presidential election? Those are just a few of the questions our colleague Onkar Ghate discusses in this fascinating interview with Mike Slater. (Onkar’s segment starts about seven minutes in.)