---
The passionate boy that I used to be.
But I'm old enough to say
I got a good look at the other side.
And though we gotta work real hard
Maybe even for the rest of our lives,
Right now I just want
To take what I can get tonight."
--Billy Joel, "The Night is Still Young"
In Part One of this series I asked how and why there could be such a concept as "Objectivist alumni" (i.e., people who don't disagree with Rand's writings, but who do not base their policy views on those writings).
I think a big part of the answer is that, although Rand's philosophy may generally be "correct" on most issues, it is simply not a very robust system. In other words, Objectivism is very good as far as it goes, but it simply doesn't go far enough.
Many if not most Freespacers are likely familiar with Rand's famous "one-legged synopsis" of her philosophy:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
Forgive my insolence, but isn't this a weakness, rather a strength, of a comprehensive philosophy? The multiplication tables are very cool, but as Monthy Python might say, you can't "build a bridge out of 'em." More is needed.
This concept of "correct but incomplete" is of particular importance to me because two of the most glaring examples of how "Objectivism doesn't get you very far" are my personal areas of expertise and interest: economics and the law. I'm certainly not faulting Rand for not being an economist or a lawyer. But honestly, it's been over 22 years since Rand died, 43 years since the publication of Atlas Shrugged, countless thousands of economists and lawyers have read and been inspired by her writings, and there's still no clear "Objectivist" theory of law beyond "contracts should be enforced" or economics beyond "capitalism is good."
Okay, fine, hat tip to Rand, but the issues I grapple with as an intellectual -- and a blogger -- already take those statements as axioms. What I try to do is form policy opinions within those frameworks -- having stipulated that "contracts should be enforced" and "capitalism, f-ck yeah!" -- now what?
Take one small example: there appears to be serious debate as to whether Objectivists should even support the existence of a legislature -- see, e.g., this post by Will Wilkinson. If this is the current state of "Objectivist law," then there can be no such thing as an "Objectivist lawyer." (See also my post earlier today on lotteries.)
Consider another realm where Objectivism appears to be a dead end: foreign policy. Rand's global affairs playbook basically consisted of "Communism is evil" and "any moral nation has the right, but not the obligation, to effect regime change in any immoral nation." Look where that latter premise has gotten us regarding Iraq -- some libertarians are practically at each other's throats arguing the "correct" libertarian position (see, e.g., the Balko-Sager Wars or the Max Borders Controversy), while Rand's intellectual heir-head, Peikoff, drones on about Iran.
There are two major "Objectivist" think tanks. What have they produced other than "Anniversary Edition" repackagings of Rand's work? Is it not time to ask whether there's anything actually left to be produced?
Of course, another fundamental weakness of Objectivism, beyond its limitations, is its outright errors. Those will be the topic of Part Three in this series.
POST SCRIPT: More on "building bridges" in a future post.
(Guest-posted earlier today at Freespace.)
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
