16th January 2011
Ayn Rand’s limited knowledge of history and economics
Just one more thing before I switch off the computer today (I must rush!).
I generally hold Ayn Rands work in high regard, particularly in terms of her clarity of thinking and razor-sharp statements. However, I find that her knowledge of history and economics is pretty ordinary. She could have done more had she undergone a wider liberal education and developed better research skills.
No doubt, some essays in Capitalism and Freedom are of sufficient clarity to rate her as a great communicator, but it was galling to read this paragraph in her essay entitled, "The Nature of Government", in The Virtue of Selfishness:
"In mankind's history, the understanding of the government's proper function is a very recent achievement: it is only two hundred years old and it dates from the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution."
Now this is absolutely wrong!
Decent understandings of the role of government had been articulated in Taoism (Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse) more than 2500 years ago in China. Even in England (and among the Scholastics in Europe), such understandings had become pretty clear, particularly since the Magna Carta. These understandings became crystal clear by the 1688 Glorious Revolution.
The works of Locke which came out at around that time made very clear the proper functions of government.
Therefore the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution were good copycats, and also innovated a bit on the margin – particularly in simplifying the language of Locke.
But Ayn Rand is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to write-off the 2500 years of history PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF USA!
Elsewhere I've found much to differ with Ayn Rand, as well: for instance, on government funding.
However, I still recommend that you read her two essays on "The Nature of Government" and "Government Financing in a Free Society". I rate them as reasonably good, but not excellent. I have no time to explain why. You should find out on your own.
Overall, I find that while Rand was by no means an original thinker, and came NOWHERE close to, say, Hayek, in calibre, she was a reasonably good exponent of key principles of classical liberalism.