Ayn Rand…the Anarchist?

Have anarchists and minarchists been wrong about Ayn Rand and her political philosophy?

In the years that I’ve floated around many different anarchist circles, I’ve always noticed a remarkable hatred for Ayn Rand and Objectivism in general among the crowds. I understand the philosophical feud between her “minarchist” ideology and the anarcho-capitalist groups of her day, but I’ve never quite grasped why she was so despised – and frankly, why she despised anarchists. Despite her unwavering criticism of anarchist philosophies and despite the ridicule that was thrown back at her, what were the real philosophical differences between these two “opposing” groups?

There seems to be a perception among minarchists that Ayn Rand actually supported a minarchist state – that a minimal state could be created and its authority justified via taxation and enforcement mechanisms that protect its claim of authority. Many anarchists seem to have a similar perception of her and what she advocated. She has been repeatedly accused of being a statist herself – an ostensibly damning charge for anarchists and minarchists alike. Her defenders often rush to call anarchists ignorant, impractical, or otherwise Utopian.

At the risk of being vilified by both anarchists and minarchists, I believe that there is a fundamental misconception about Ayn Rand and her political philosophy from both sides.

Among all of Rand’s literature that I’ve read, the one work that stood out in my mind was The Virtue of Selfishness. It was this collection of essays that truly made me realize that what Rand advocated was almost identical to what anarchists desire.

(Dramatic pause)

…

Now that I’ve given some of you a few seconds to curse me and spit at your screens, let me explain. I’m not saying that Ayn Rand believed that she was in fact an anarchist and I’m not saying that anarchists want minarchism. I’m simply acknowledging that Rand’s ideal version of “government” did not involve coercion.

Yes, she certainly did argue that there should be a single objective authority that was charged with law-making and law enforcement.

“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” – Man’s Rights, 1963

However, she also stated that the laws could only be legitimate and enforceable if their sole purpose was to defend individual rights of life and property.

“Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection.”

She further stated that this “government” could not be legitimized or funded through any initiation of physical force, which meant that funding could not be imposed via taxation – all government funding must be voluntary.

“In a fully free society, taxation – or, to be exact, payment for governmental services – would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government – the police, the armed forces, the law courts – are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.” – Government Financing in a Free Society, 1964

I can hear anarchists saying now, “So she advocated anarchy then?” Well, for all intents and purposes – yes, she did. On principle, there is virtually no difference between 1) a “government” that is charged only with protecting individual rights and – initiation of force being immoral – is funded voluntarily, and 2) anarcho-capitalist philosophy. Rand herself even stated, “Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.” She further identifies individual consent as that which grants legitimacy in relationships, including the governmental variety.

Where, then, is the breakdown between what she truly believed were her philosophical/political principles and her absolute refusal to recognize anarchism as the logical end to her political goals?

There are three concepts that should have naturally brought Rand to the same conclusion as any anarchist.

1. Individual rights of life and property (Self-ownership)
2. The initiation of force is immoral (Non-aggression)
3. Legitimate authority may only be derived through consent (Voluntary participation)

On all three counts, Rand agreed and she argued as much throughout her writings. Her entire Objectivist political philosophy is based on these principles. They should have naturally led her to advocate a voluntary society, which she essentially did – on principle. Except for one possible error, she ought to have been an anarchist.

The Origin of the Randian Breakdown?

“The source of the government’s authority is ‘the consent of the governed.’ This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

“There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own).” – The Nature of Government, 1963

It appears here that Rand presupposes the existence of this “government” as the arbiter of just authority prior to any individuals agreeing to the authority. This would be a remarkable break in her logic, especially considering that her previous argument was that agents of the state had a habit of placing society at large and themselves outside the bounds of morality.

“Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter — and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.” – Man’s Rights

Despite Rand’s stated principles that were derived through her Objectivist philosophy (self-ownership, non-aggression, and voluntary interaction), she seems to erroneously conclude that individuals must delegate their right of “self-defense” or “retaliatory force” and that these rights must be delegated in a specific manner to a specific group of other individuals. Like so many political philosophers before her, Rand does not establish any legitimacy regarding the creation of that theoretical objective authority.

But is this what she truly advocated? I haven’t found any literature from her that would indicate that she did not. There is another possibility, however.

If we are to assume that her arguments – although quite rigid – were in fact only theoretical, would it also be safe to assume that Rand was describing a future government that was indeed derived via the individual consent of everyone under its legitimate authority? She often stated that the current society was not free and that the concepts she advocated would not be understood within the context of the political ideologies of her time. She understood the difficulty of trying to explain her philosophy by using language and concepts that had been perverted for centuries. Is this not the same type of headwind that anarchists also faced at the time – and still encounter today?

If we look at one of Rand’s examples of a free society – Galt’s Gulch from Atlas Shrugged – we can see that her ideal community was based on completely voluntary participation in it. Nobody was forced to move there and to abide by their rules. Nobody was forced to trade with or otherwise financially support any other individual. Would it not be safe to assume that what Rand envisioned in Galt’s Gulch is fundamentally the same concept that she proposed for the rest of society? And does that vision actually conflict with anarchist or voluntaryist philosophy?

Two Conflations for the Price of One

When I think about the position that Rand held according to the principles that she espoused in her literary works, I’m immediately drawn to two points that may be causing the rift between Objectivist minarchists and non-Objectivist anarchists. The cause could be one or the other, or a combination of both.

Based on her collection of writings, Rand believed that the objectivity of law could only be ensured if it was monopolistic and statutory. This was her main argument against anarchy. She seemingly did not believe that polycentric or customary law could be objective in practice. She claimed that her Objectivist philosophy did not allow for what she believed would be subjective interpretations of law and, consequently, subjective enforcement. As a result, Rand would often use this argument against her anarchist opponents and the concept of competing governments:

“One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.” - The Nature of Government

It is precisely a response like this that leads me to believe that the disagreement isn’t really about opposing principles or her assessment of objective law by an objective third party. Instead, there is an apparent conflation of terms. Rather than seeing what is akin to investigation and defense services – something that exists in the private security industry today – Rand interprets this as a “government” that is charged with “the forcible restraint of men,” to which she simplistically reduces any possible government service.

“Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.”

Once again, there is an obvious conflation – this time with the implied notion that competing services would be competing to forcibly restrain men. That, however, is not what the service providers are competing for in this case. The competition is not among the providers to see who can best restrain the most people in the shortest time and at the lowest cost. Essentially, Rand is employing a straw man tactic without even stating the straw man argument outright. She merely hints at it and asks the reader to fill in the blanks. In this case, the reader is left with the impression that the anarchist position would create a competition among fraudulent and sadistic private police forces who simply want to brutalize people.

The real question is – why would a company try to do such a thing in order to win over customers and earn their trust, confidence, and money? Furthermore, in a society of polycentric law and competing defense services, how could a company even get away with such terror against so many people? The same competition of “forcible restraint” that Rand identifies would still be able to exist in other agencies whose customers want to see an end to the brutalization. Under monopolistic statutory law, there is no other competition that could intervene or mitigate the effects – because it would be prevented by law.

What Rand fears would be a disaster in one case has already proven to be a disaster in the other.

Still, her objections do not explain her own principles and how those objections lead to an actual conflict with them. The three principles – self-ownership, non-aggression, and consent/voluntary participation – still apply. Nothing has changed and she never argues against them or states that they must necessarily be discarded upon entering civil society. Because of this, I can only presume that the major disagreement from Rand’s perspective was due to purely semantic issues.

This is certainly not unique to her, either. It is a common misconception among many libertarians and minarchists and it feels as though it’s just a matter of terminology. The concepts are practically the same. Ask an Objectivist libertarian if they believe in the individual rights of life and property and they’ll tell you, “Yes.” Ask an Objectivist minarchist if they believe that the initiation of force is morally acceptable and they’ll tell you, “No.” Ask them if they believe that consent is the foundation for all legitimate interpersonal relationships and they’ll say, “Of course.”

Ask them why they’re not anarchists…and watch them launch into a tirade about how stupid and impractical an anarchist “system” would be. Listen to them shout “Utopian!” from the mountaintops.

On the other hand, if you ask some of the anarchists about Ayn Rand, you’re likely to hear an argument that makes it seem as though she was a horrific laboratory creation made from Stalin’s and Hitler’s DNA. With the two philosophies being almost identical, one would think that the common ground would provide enough room for everyone to stand on and discuss the fundamental principles – which are the same.

All I am Saying is, “Give Rand a Chance”

I can’t say whether or not Ayn Rand’s arguments were limited to a specific hypothetical future society where all individuals were actually free to participate in the establishment of a government. I can say that Rand argued on many different occasions that rights were not to be violated by governments, that such violations would make the government illegitimate, and that governments could not be funded through coercive means such as taxation. All of the major points concerning individual liberty and voluntary society were identical for both Rand and anarcho-capitalists. It is possible that her preference for monopolistic statutory law was simply what she believed was the logical conclusion of her Objectivist philosophy. It is also possible - and in my opinion, likely – that her position was not meant to be taken as a justification to force anyone to accept her preferred legal system.

As anarchists, we often and sometimes almost exclusively have to argue on theoretical terms. When speaking about the possibilities of an anarchist society, there are certain assumptions that are made regarding how different systems within the society might work – or ought to work – based on foundational principles and logical argumentation. Given Rand’s repeated stated positions on individual rights, initiation of force, and her thoughts on voluntarily funded government, I don’t believe that she was actually fundamentally opposed to anarchism. I think she was simply opposed to a concept of anarchy that she was not familiar with and that she didn’t fully comprehend.

In any case, it’s important for anarchists and Objectivists alike to recognize the vast common ground between us. And, dare I say – if we could ever reach a point in my lifetime where Ayn Rand’s system of governance was adopted, I could certainly find a way to live in uncompromised pleasure until my death. As with any philosophy, it’s not just about expressing your ideals and goals – it’s how you get there. That should be the shared focus and that, above anything else, should bring like minds together.

---

The revenue that I generate through my content on Steemit will be used for start-up funding for my business and as a foundation for multiple non-profit farming community projects in Central America. You can read about some of my vision in my post, Enriching Lives Through the Power of Steemit. Please feel free to contribute to my cause in any way that you can. We can achieve greatness through voluntary interaction!