Ruth Institute Blog

I listened to Dr. J’s debate with Objectivist Dr. Yaron Brook about capitalism.  I have to say that the debate was quite one sided.  Dr. J delivered a polite yet devastating drubbing to Dr. Brook.

Of course, being a fan of debate, especially those with religious/secular themes, I find it hard not to kibbitz.  So, here are some comments.

Dr. J opened up with some definitions of capitalism.  That definition (taken from “The Victory of Reason” and supplied to her by yours truly, I might add)  included several elements of capitalism.  She then discussed the Pope’s approval of those elements.  At this point, Dr. J could have uttered the words Quod Erat Demonstrandum and walked off the podium.  She was gracious enough to continue.

Dr. Brook also supplied a definition of capitalism.  However, (and I could be mistaken here) but I would be that Brook’s and Rand’s peculiar notion of what capitalism entails does not predate Rand.  He defines capitalism, essentially as a social system based on the recognition of individual rights in which all property is privately owned.  There has never been a time or place in which this peculiar definition of capitalism has been tried.  I doubt there ever will be.  However, we, in the west have been enjoying the fruits of the capitalist enterprise as Dr. J defined it for centuries.  I think that says something as to whose definition of Capitalism is best– the that of the realist Dr. J or the purist Dr. Brook.

I have two further comments on Dr. Brook’s definition of capitalism.

Rodney Stark in “The Victory of Reason” points out that individualism and individual rights became known to the general world via Christianity.  It would have been very interesting to hear Dr. Brook’s reaction to that point.  He probably would have cited Aristotle, but Stark’s book provides significant evidence that the Greeks did not have a very well formed notion of individualism and individual rights.  I doubt Brook could have responded to this point adequately.  It’s always so much fun to watch a person squirming as the central pillar of his argument falls out from beneath him!

Dr. J was also very kind not to point out Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum that a foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds.  The little minds who believe in objectivism are singularly susceptible to this hobgoblin. Witness an account of Rand’s treatment of her husband as told in this wonderful article by Theodore Dalrymple.  It depicts the awful results of Rand’s obsessive belief on the value of intellectual consistency above all else:

Rand’s hardness of heart was not only confined to the page. There is a chilling account in the biography of how she treated her long-suffering husband, Frank O’Connor, when he suffered from dementia:

She nagged at him continually, to onlookers’ distress. “Don’t humor him,” she [said]. “Make him try to remember.” She insisted that his mental lapses were “psycho-epistemological,” and she gave him long, grueling lessons in how to think and remember. She assigned him papers on aspects of his mental functioning, which he was entirely unable to write.

This downright cruelty (as well as downright stupidity) derived from her overvaluation of supposed intellectual consistency in the conduct of daily life. She believed that it was more important to adhere to a principle than to behave well. Among her many bad ideas was the compatibility of all human desiderata, and that any conflict of a man’s interests was merely the consequence of his not having thought through his situation sufficiently, and applied a fundamental and indubitable principle correctly and consistently. For Rand, there was no ambiguity in the world: if it is true that man has free will and is responsible for his conduct, it cannot also be that there is a condition such as dementia that robs a man of his capacity for choice. Hence her husband’s lapses were wilful and deliberate, to be corrected by Randian brainwashing. This is authentically horrible.

Rand’s foolish consistency was not just the hobgoblin of her little mind but of a twisted mind as well.

When broken down to its essentials, Brook’s argument is that Catholicism (or any religion for that matter) is incompatible with capitalism because those religions do not always believe that Ayn Rand’s solutions to any given problem are the correct solutions, and that Ayn Rand’s desiderata are not always the most desirable.  Brook deplores the Pope’s criticism of the “Excesses” of capitalism or that markets could be “relatively free.”  For Brook, it seems, it is all or nothing.  For Brook, there is never a need for a State to restrain or control private property.

I would, for the most part, agree with Brook.  There is seldom a need for the state to restrain or control private property.  However, there are an infinite number of problems that may arise in managing a civil society.  Of those infinite number of problems, I have little doubt that some of the solutions that would have the best outcomes in addressing those problems are ones in which the State plays a part.  It seems to me that Brook would dismiss those solutions out of hand as being inconsistent with his philosophy.  While mercilessly deriding faith, Brook shows unshakable faith in his sacred philosophy. I do not believe that any philosophy is wonderful enough to provide solutions to all problems that are liable to crop up.

For the record, the reason I would oppose involvement of the State in response to almost any given problem is that even if the State could provide the best solution, one could expect trouble in getting the State back OUT of the problem when it’s solved.  What is needed is wisdom in determining how best to address a problem, not one-size-fits-all solutions provided by faith in a philosophy.