Is There An Unassailable Argument Against The Religion Of Rand? (And Whacky Derivatives Like Galambos?)

Regarding Philosophy, Religion, and Government:

a) A Philosophy is a set of related ideas for the purpose of allowing humans to take actions that accomplish ends in the face of necessary uncertainty about the future.
b) A Religion is a habituated philosophical framework, for political purposes, using pedagogy for indoctrination, and which relies ostensibly upon voluntary participation, but because of habituation by the individual and within the environment, is largely involuntary.
c) A Government is an institutionalized philosophical framework using forcible coercion, and therefore relies upon involuntary participation.

What separates a philosophy, from a religion, from a government, is the formality of the institutions, where the increasing formality of the institutions eliminate human choice. What starts as a personal conceptual framework, becomes a framework that a group teaches to others, becomes formal institutions that compel others to adhere to the principles of the philosophy. It is an arbitrary

Everything, every idea, has to come from somewhere. Humans may have natural sentiments. But ideas are something that they come by.

Military, Political, judicial and pedagogical (religious) institutions do not require belief or consent. They compel adherence by the application of force, or, by near universal habituation, deprivation of opportunity for non-conformers. Philosophy alone allows voluntary adherence to Military, Policial, Judicial, Pedagogical as well as Moral, Ethical and Mannerism frameworks. But let’s look at the problem of choosing philosophy a bit…

If there is anyone who is willing to debate me on the limitations of Rand, I’ll take the bet. Even if you bring Peikoff to the table. Yet, despite those limitations, I can defend her propositions against all classical arguments. However, the one I cannot defend it against, is the idea that it is in the interest of the common man, to adopt a political philosophy that is not in his or her individual, temporal, interest. We have but one life, and it consists of limited time. And the proletariat therefore, has a shorter term time horizon than the upper classes.

So, Marxism is in the poor’s interest. Democratic socialism is in the working and lower middle class interest. Libertarianism is in the upper middle class interest. And classical liberalism is in the upper class interest. To argue that Rand is anything other than a class philosophy, is to argue that men are equal. Since men are not equal in ability, health, age, knowledge, experience, skill, resources, and relationships — then any philosophy that attempts to be universal to man is by definition a religion. That’s the provence of religion: universal application. Even if some adhere to tenets out of mysticism, some out of allegory, and some out of rational moral analysis, the tenets are the same. That’s the elegance of a religion, and the cultural principles of cooperation that religious idea sets contain.

Unfortunately religions rely on mysticism in order to capture the attention of the poor and ignorant proletariat. The secular religion does not. It simply attempts to buy their conformity with services, consumer goods and redistribution. It is cheaper to rely upon mysticism. More expensive to rely on redistribution. And it appears to be more economically productive to rely on redistribution. The question is only how to achieve the redistribution, and the limits of it.

Rand, like Marx, Trotsky, Mises and Rothbard, (and Simmel) is simply trying to apply Jewish diasporic religious sentiments to political philosophy. An attempt, that despite the obvious evidence that jewish philosophy is the result of either an arrested or failed civilization. A failed civilization wherein the members of the faith are either unwilling or unable to pay the social sacrifices necessary to hold land. And, having held land, created create the institutions of land holding, and then, by consequence, the institutions of property and built capital needed for an advanced society consisting of a division of labor wherein the natural inequality of humans is expressed by their unequal rewards from participating in the market.

All humans seek to JUSTIFY their SENTIMENTS. An act which is anything but scientific. And an act which is arguably religious – it seeks justification rather than exposition.

[callout]A political philosophy that requires unanimity of belief, that does not have cooperative institutions, even private institutions as Hoppe recommends, is to argue that men will adopt a philosophy that is in the interest of other men, particularly those in a competing social class, and is against their interests economically, and socially (status being the human political economy), is not scientific. It is not scientific Because it is COUNTER TO OBSERVATION AND COUNTER TO REASON. [/callout]

A political philosophy that requires unanimity of belief, that does not have cooperative institutions, even private institutions as Hoppe recommends, is to argue that men will adopt a philosophy that is in the interest of other men, particularly those in a competing social class, and is against their interests economically, and socially (status being the human political economy), is not scientific. It is not scientific Because it is COUNTER TO OBSERVATION AND COUNTER TO REASON.

Social status is the native human accounting system. We need no devices to sense it. We must rely upon social status so that human animals can know who to imitate, and learn from and associate with in order to best achieve their potential, and the group’s potential. People form groups: Race, Religion, Language, Nation, Class, Generation and Skill Set or career, then hierarchy within that career, are the broadest and most common. Social cues intra-group are lower cost than social cues extra-group. Therefore people specialize in intra-group social cues. This is why individuals in small homogenous single-city-state societies are more egalitarian than in empires. Empires may be able to dictate terms of commerce and issue inflationary currency, but why they are socially tumultuous if the groups can use the political system rather than the market to compete with other groups.

As Randianism (and Galmbosianism) is counter to reason, because it requires unanimity of belief, despite not being the interest of the working or judicial classes, then it is unscientific. If it requires unanimity of belief then it is by definition a religion. Because it is the belief in the impossible and irrational.

It has replaced superstitious belief in god, with a superstitious belief in the behavior of man.

The market economy is superior because the pricing system is the most effective way of informing people as to the behavior that they must exhibit in order to create a low cost high production society where even the poor have more than our ancestors ever dreamed of. However, the market requires institutions and a minimal private government, which we consider a network of contractual agreements. And if individuals simply REFRAIN from theft, fraud, and violence, then they are in effect, shareholders in that society and due profits on their contributions to it. As such, some minimal distribution from the results of the market are due those minority shareholders. The argument that they pay no costs, and make no contribution to the market is false. Since inaction, even the inaction of refraining from theft, fraud, and violence, is a form of action. To say otherwise is to say only money is action.

One response to “Is There An Unassailable Argument Against The Religion Of Rand? (And Whacky Derivatives Like Galambos?)”

  1. RE: “I’ve read a lot on freedom. And nowhere does it mention this.”

    1) You are confusing the sentiment of human freedom with the political institutions needed to perpetuate it. In the western world, freedom is preserved through institutions that protect freedom from the state. It is a technical and procedural political system. The jewish tradition is diasporic and religious, perpetuated by indoctrination and threat of ostracization, as well as in-group concentration of opportunities. Ie: it is a religion. Jews have been diasporic and religious, western pagan-christendom has been political and institutional. There is no dispute on these factors.

    2) the original thread’s criticism of Bob was that Randianism and it’s derivatives in Galambosianism were religions. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING they qualify as religions a) because they are pedagogically propagated using narratives and b) because they do NOT require coercive organizations to perpetuate them, and c) because the anarchic absence of either PEDAGOGICAL or INSTITUTIONAL methods of obtaining compliance combined with the market system, and it’s dividison of knowledge and labor, will of necessity create classes for whom the market system alone is disadvantageous. It is counter to human behavior to adopt strategies that are disadvantageous. Therefore there will never be a unanimity of philosophy among participants in a market economy. And because of this, Randianism is a religion.

    3) Knowledge of any sort must of necessity consist of objects of consideration, their properties and the causal relations between objects of consideration. An analysis of causal relations must have first causes. (In the human world, that means ‘actions’.) An explanation of a sequence from first causes determines a chain of causality. In human context, the history of ideas consists of one philosopher standing upon the conceptual shoulders of another philosopher. Cultures produce their own philosophers, that solve their culture’s own organizational problems. The sinic philosopher’s solved for the balance between male and female agrarian roles, as well as the balance between the consumption of the nobility at feasts, and the needs of the common people to have food, and they failed to solve the problem of politics, and so they focused sinic civilization on the family. Western civilization was on the edge of the bronze age civilization as it expanded, and it’s philosophers solved the problem of many chieftains forming alliances to control land as the bronze age expanded. Persian and Egyptian civilizations were authoritarian because they originated in priests who had to get people to perform organized irrigation in river deltas. Jewish civilization is a diasporic philosophy of a people…. the bible is the story of the rise and fall of the jewish kingdom, after which thew jews became diasporic… and no longer could develop institutions. Or,it might be better said, as a religious people, they were not able to develop institutions that were as militarily capable of defending the people from external pressures. All of these civilizations seek to use their past philosophies to solve current problems, rather than looking across all civilizations and understanding that the problem of human cooperation is simply one of developing different institutions of cooperation. And that the western model of decentralized prices and individual property simply produces all forms of innovation faster than all other social coordination models, and therefore is more competitive at production than all other social coordination models. TO illustrate these facts as intellectual history is a study in the growth of knowledge in all cultures, it is not anti-anything. It is simply fact. The jewish philosophers are notable for their retention of religious institutional methods rather than political institutional methods, and that retention is due to their inabilty to hold land (or may be the cause of it). The christian philosophers are notorious (as illustrated by Nietzsche, or Descartes, or Heigl) for trying to reconcile a moral religious argument for political order. The Aristotelian philosophers, (as illustrated by Aristotle, Machiavelli, Weber, Pareto, Burnham, Sorrel, and Michels… and perhaps Hoppe) are notorious for their pragmatism in political institutions. Hoppe probably being the innovator. THe jewish philosophers (abraham, Spinoza, Marx, Rothbard, Mises, Rand) all perpetuare the jewish religious methodology of social organization rather than the political institutional method of social organization. Property rights exist in all forms. It’s the methodology of compliance with the spectrum of property rights, no matter how they are defined, that varies between these cultures. But it is consistent between the philosophers within each culture.

Leave a Reply