Ayn Rand was right (and so was I)

This is a subject I already touched here
Then I said,

Consequentialists arguments are very efficient because people are generally willing to change their mind easily on those matters... but what make them successful also makes them weak : they can be replaced with other consequentialist arguments. Moral arguments are much tougher to make because people are more reluctant to accept a new moral philosophy, but they are also much more stable, and will likely be successfully passed onto children. Every consequentialist argument however is a step away from freedom as an end instead of freedom as a mean. On the long term, the fate of the new belief is unknown... it may be replaced with an economic fallacy. It's negative effect on morality will always be damaging though.

I was right (duh). Indeed, with the financial crisis raging, it is easy to find free market libertarians getting cold feet. Greenspan confesses

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"


Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said.

"Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

Whoa, this is Greenspan ?
There are other examples, of libertarians hiding, feeling guilty, changing their mind about regulation, etc. I've seen plenty on French classical liberal blogs.

Consequentialist Austrians are ok for now, because they saw it coming long ago, but the problem remains. Regulation is a matter of rights. A state is not a special moral entity, it has no right to tell other people what kind of business they can engage in, provided they respect other people's right. Although I don't believe this crisis was the result of free market gone wrong, I do believe it is possible for big crisis to happen in a free market, especially since globalization has tied so many people together. In any case, even financial Armageddon do not justify regulation, period.

Rand understood this problem very well and kept repeating that if you make promises on the "good" results of capitalism, you might end up with disappointed people turning against capitalism. How many people who where convinced that free market are good on a utilitarian basis are now changing their mind ? Years of the utilitarian / libertarian propaganda have been destroyed in a matter of months.

Share this

Does the fact that Greenspan

Does the fact that Greenspan came to his views through Ayn Rand and not through Chicago-style consequentialism alter your analysis in any way?

Ay but no true Scottman.

Ay but no true Scottman. Seriously, Greenspan was influenced but barely. I've never seen him make moral statements about the free market. Sure he was close to Rand, that's doesn't make him an objectivist, no matter what he says.

Income distribution when Austrians were running pre WW2 Austria?

Yes. How did the working class do in jolly olde Austria?

In which country under a gold based money system was there a large middle class and less than 10% living in poverty? Switzerland?