By Robert C. Nasir
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to hear Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. speak, on the local radio station WXYT's Mark Scott show. The interview intrigued me, as Mr. Rockwell spoke about free market principles, and I learned that he was president and founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, described by The National Review as "a free-market economics think tank". At the end of his interview he gave an address to which listeners could write, to receive a free copy of his organization's newsletter, "The Free Market".
Forgetting the wise words of Robert Heinlein, who once wrote, "anything free is worth what you pay for it," I decided the price was right I sent in my self-addressed, stamped envelope.
I was surprised and disappointed to find out that the Contributing Editor of Mr. Rockwell's newsletter, and head of academic affairs for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is Murray N. Rothbard. In his comprehensive compilation of articles, entitled Libertarianism: The Perversion Of Liberty, Peter Schwartz describes Rothbard as "widely regarded as as the intellectual father of the Libertarian movement". And proceeds to discredit him as having anything to offer the fight for Liberty, by virtue of Mr. Rothbard's denial of any objective link between fundamental philosophy and the causes for, and of, Liberty.
Well, one hesitates to judge a person only by the company he keeps, when more conclusive evidence may be available.
Browsing the few issues of The Free Market I've received, I looked to Mr. Rockwell's articles for additional enlightenment. There is some very good writing in his articles (though one might suggest von Mises said it better). As is too common for such "free-market think tanks", however, there seems a refusal to ground the principles forwarded with any justification, beyond the fact that they "work" better.
Consequently, I decided to look a little further for Mr. Rockwell's roots, his intellectual framework.
In an article in the May 28, 1990 National Review, I hit paydirt. Or rather, just dirt.
In an article co-written by Mr. Rockwell and Jeffrey A. Tucker (who is managing editor of The Free Market) entitled "Ayn Rand Is Dead", Mr. Rockwell makes his philosophic foundations very clear. The headline snipe describes the subject as Christian Libertarianism. The movement in search of a philosophy has found one - the same one the Republicans have tried to "go back to" for decades.
Mr. Rockwell blames (I might say credits) Miss Rand for the atheism the Libertarian Party was "infected" with "from the beginning". He continues, "[b]ut now a burgeoning group of scholars, journalists and activists is recapturing the libertarian-Christian connection." He states accurately, "Miss Rand asserted undying war between faith and freedom." (She did more than assert this, of course, she also proved it.) He quotes Murray Rothbard, writing, "But it is to 'Christianity that we owe individual freedom and Capitalism.' " If the refutation of this statement is not obvious, see Dr. Leonard Peikoff's Religion vs. America, reprinted in The Voice Of Reason.
Throughout the article, his references to Miss Rand are insulting, inaccurate, and do not bear repeating: I suggest anyone interested look up the original article.
Mr. Rockwell ends his piece with a list of ten items, entitled, "What Christian Libertarians Believe". He offers several imminently true statements (without even the suggestion of philosophic grounding, as in the statement, "2. Western culture is eminently worthy of preservation and defense"), and includes "3. Vigorous social authority - as embodied in the family, church, and other mediating institutions - is a bedrock of the virtuous society." [emphasis his] This in a list that states, "1. Objective standards of morality are essential to the free and civilized social order." Clearly, the man hasn't a clue what objectivity is.
I've written this brief article to help give leads to others who might have heard Mr. Rockwell, or heard about him, and have the same curiosity I did. I encourage those interested to do their own research. And be careful who you support. You can never know what disgusting things you might be supporting - until you DO know.
--------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, many local folks have asked me what I think about Mark Scott, a local radio talk show host on a major radio station, who broadcasts for three hours Monday through Friday and claims to be a proponent of Objectivism. After hearing what I think, they ask me what I have against him. That he, a man know has intimate knowledge not only of Objectivism but the philosophy's history as well, includes men like Mr. Rockwell, as well as Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and the like, on his broadcast, and then becomes upset, on the air, that Dr. Leonard Peikoff's office refuses to consider scheduling an interview on Mr. Scott's show, says enough.
Copyright 1992 The Reality Check. All rights reserved.
Addendum:
I recently (March 2000) received a letter from a reader, who wrote, in part:
|
I do find your statement about Leonard Peikoff not wanting to appear on Scott's broadcast a little strange. AR always was willing to go in front of audiences even when she knew that they don't agree with her philosophy. Examples are the Ford Forum, and the Phil Donohue (?) TV interviews. |
...and went on to describe Leonard Peikoff's policy in this regard thus: "How childish!"
The following was my reply:
| Thank you for your letter.
I must say that I do not agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand, nor of Leonard Peikoff. It is not the case that Ayn Rand "ALWAYS was willing to go in front of audiences..." (Emphasis mine.) There ARE speaking opportunities which she refused. As an example: Libertarian organizations, whom she did "not speak of, or to..." [The Sanction Of The Victim, 1981]. There is a context in which speaking to a group is, and cannot help but be, an endorsement. Not, necessarily, an endorsement of the group's full position, but of the group, and specifically it's members qua members of such a group, as being open to reason. If I went before a congregation of evangelical Christians* and stood at their pulpit, in their forum, solely to explain to them why their religion is an irrational sham, I am also, necessarily, saying, "despite our disagreement, I consider this to be a forum of individuals who are open to the persuasion of reason." Which is silly, since it clearly is not. ( *...or Scientologists or astrologers or Libertarians or voodoo-worshipers etc... ) After prolonged exposure to Mark Scott, and his shows on bible interpretations & revelations, astrology, Libertarianism, anarchy, and more than I can (nor care to) recall, I certainly place him in that category. It would take more time than I have at the moment to explain why I think Mark Scott has done more harm than good, despite the lucky people who've become familiar with Ayn Rand by having first heard of her through his radio program. In short, having Mark Scott as an advocate of your philosophy is not unlike, in kind if not in degree, having a raving lunatic as your chosen spokesman. Your name may become more famous, but it won't be a fame you'd want. It'll make you more (deserved) enemies that allies. I've talked to a few people who said, "yes I learned about Objectivism by first hearing of it on Scott's program." I've talked to many more who've said, "Ayn Rand? Oh yeah, she's the one that nut Mark Scott learned from." I don't take this anecdotal evidence as conclusive, but merely as consistent with the principles involved. It is the principles on which my understanding of the issue stands. Sincerely, Robert C. Nasir |