Adam Smith vs. Ayn Rand - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[NetzKaiser]

He is a typical objectivist. I don't like them. They have a god called Ayn Rand and that is the end of reason and sincerity. Adam Smith is only wrong, because the first commandment is: you shall have no other gods before me. IMHO

[JackyB92]

This guy doesn't understand Adam Smith at all...

[YoungIvyScholar]

Fact: Adam Smith deeply considered progressive taxation.

[a199215]

What an idiot.

[h3avyduty]

He didn't even read the first couple of chapters of Wealth Of Nations, where Smith says that in trade and exchange we apply ourselves to other peoples self-interest, and that only a beggar would apply themselves to other's altruism.

[ariuszarim]

Smith argues that collective good is a side effect of personal interest. Also, if you discount the invisible hand, then there's no reason to have an unplanned economy. Gotta read those books before you make an argument.

[TheGanjaClub]

And why people who want to buy cannabis MUST intercourse with a mafia, thereby putting themselves at risk and are wary of police persecution? Is it not better if they ACQUIRE Cannabis special place by the State. Where are DIRTY MONEY? Why ordinary people can not engaged in this business, plant seeds, watered, grow, harvest, delivered to the state and thereby earn a living CLEAN MONEY.

[MrMustard12345]

This man has not read Adam Smith: no where in Smith's work does he try to "justify capitalism on altruistic grounds." Altruism is defined as a selfless concern for the welfare of others. Smith's belief was that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society. Altruism is intentional, clearly.

[Bigturns33]

I think the claim is valid though I would agree with you to some extent. Smith was looking at it on a macroscale for its justification. In that sense it altrusitc or more so egalitarian in that we have free markets for the sake of all. Naturally this happens anyway in free markets but I think the Smith would have agreeed with rational self interest and he individual and the trader principle with what rand talked about.

[NetzKaiser]

@MrMustard12345 But Ayn Rand's opinion is that Adam Smith did that and she is the only standard of trueness (for an objectivist). Do you want to preach double standard or even worser multi standard? ;-)

[MrMustard12345]

@NetzKaiser You're an idiot.

[NetzKaiser]

@MrMustard12345 Ok, I think I cannot convey irony in English. I should stop trying it.

[blspro]

And "clearly" Smith justified a man's pursuit of his self-interest by claiming it "promotes the good of society". IOW, he justified it on collectivist grounds, not the rights of a man to his life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. Smith's premise is that men should permit others the pursuit of their self-interest *because* their pursuit will ultimately benefit the collective.

"Clearly" that is altruism - a morality which holds others, not the self, as the standard of values.

[ChasingCharles]

@MrMustard12345 what this man is saying is that the individuals existence does not have to be justified because of the positive effect (rational) selfishness can have on society. It is an end in itself, the rest is a bonus. I have to admit that Objectivists over-use the terms Altruism, Looters, Moochers and Sacrificial Animals.

[MrMustard12345]

@ChasingCharles I am not in the business of trying to interpret poorly-worded, vague assertions over YouTube topics. If you wish to challenge me, be coherent.

[bweazel]

Ouch, burn. Reasking the guy's question the way he should have asked it. How embarrassing. Oh well, that's what you get when you ask vauge questions and you're a dick while you do it. You get treated like one.

[lessiv]

What if you have no choice and have to work at low wages? You can quit, but then youll starve : )

[willzyx1980]

Where does Smith actually write that "the public interest" is a *justification* for capitalism?

His statements about the harmony of interests under a system of private property rights are famous, but those are observations not unlike the one Schwartz made in this video. Where does Smith suggest that these are intended as a moral justification for capitalism?

[greggh]

"You are entitled to pursue your own self interest without having to be a servant to others."

That's not Objectivism. That's not Rand. That's Marx. Almost verbatim from Capital. That's Communism. The people that produce the surplus should keep the surplus.

Objectivism is the philosophy that individuals have the right to economically exploit others. And that it is entirely moral to do so.

[TheSmartGuy1234]

No no no. Your argument is flawed because you are putting words into my mouth and essentially making a straw-man argument. When did I ever say that EVERY member of a society must benefit before the society can benefit? How about you argue against my actual points, instead of what you misinterpret?

Secondly, it isn't my fault that Ayn Rand made up a new definition for a word and failed to make this fact well known.

[TheSmartGuy1234]

Video: This guy is making a very weak argument for the differences. Society is a collection of people. What helps society, generally, helps the individual. If an economic system helps society, then it must, necessarily, help the individuals that make up that society, in general. That is why it is appropriate to justify the implementation of an economic system on the basis of its benefit towards society.

As well, altruism is based in self-interest.

[786Bruno]

This is what I despise about these free market think tanks who misappropriate Adam Smith's name. They read about four lines of The Wealth of Nations, and pretend their experts. They don't even recognize that Adam Smith wrote another book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which argues that while the market system is useful it can only exist in a compassionate society

[haxanthrobo]

Be selfish Wow !

groundbreaking

who could of concieved of it

Genius!

[snakeinthegrass20]

@haxanthrobo hmm sarcasm ? Funny but when I finally did understand I did say those things.

[langengro]

It's obvious that these Ayn Rand people have as little to do with the historical Adam Smith as do all the run-off-the-mill Libertarians who make use of his name without ever having read more of him than the two words "Invisible Hand". But the Ayn Rand guy has the advantage of being aware of this fact. The two reasons he gives are valid: (1) Smith gave a utilitarian justification of the free market, and (2) he didn't endorse unrestricted capitalism. One might add (3) that he did value altruism.

[Nintendomanwill]

But Adam Smith came to advocate strictly volitional exchange from his Christian views about the necessity of thrift and of enabling a system that produces the greatest amount of wealth. That more or less proves that from a societal perspective individual profit is the best way you can apply your labour for the benefit of others-his whole schtick was that in a market your profit correlates to how much others assess your utility. The best altruism is profit seeking via exchange and Smith knew this

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill

"The best altruism is profit seeking via exchange and Smith knew this"

- Smith wrote a whole book about altruism (the "Theory of Moral Sentiments", 1759). And you can believe me, altruism is NOT profit seeking via exchange, according to him.

[Nintendomanwill]

Be that as it may, the point of the Wealth of Nations was to both refute Mercantilist doctrines about the need to reduce the trade of other nations (and to show that the effect of such policies were only to internalise trade, contrary to the Mercantilist purpose of dominating it) AND ALSO to explain why profit seeking is directed to a good purpose if no force is used ie in a system of 'natural liberty.' A confused philosophy in light of his previous work? Yes. But he wasn't for forced 'charity.'

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill I am not aware that Smith was against charity in any form, private or public. The debate with the Mercantilists is not about this topic at all. Smith's predecessor Bernard de Mandeville, who foreshadowed the now popular idea of an "invisible hand", was indeed opposed to charity. But when Smith says "It is not from the benevolence of the baker that we expect our bread", he certainly doesn't rule out that it is from the benevolence of a mother that an infant expects his milk.

[Nintendomanwill]

I never said Smith was against charity. What I said:

"But he wasn't for forced 'charity'"

The fundamental lesson of economics is that if force is used, reason is abrogated, the reason that is manifested in propriety and de facto disposition and agency over material things. So law must protect us from force, not initiate it. Mercantilism makes the working classes suffer through expropriation/bailouts allow leveragers on overproduced, diminished-returns sectors (HOUSING) to profit at our expense

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill Yes, I read what you said: "He wasn't for forced 'charity'". That's why I paraphrased my reply as "He wasn't against charity in any form, public or private".

As to the libertarian considerations that you put forward, I wouldn't want to argue about them. Just point out that, whatever their value might be, you certainly didn't pick them up by reading Adam Smith.

[Nintendomanwill]

Yes I did. Smith understood what many contemporary 'economists' (mostly Statist, inflationist and redistributionist hacks) would do well to learn. That something is the most fundamental truth of how civilisations prosper: voluntary exchange within a division of labour, itself arising from the exponentially greater productivity of market co-ordination of divided labour rather than tribal or personal autarky. Using force/theft/fraud breaks that mutually beneficial ordination allowing Mercantilism.

[Nintendomanwill]

"who does not inwardly feel the truth of that great stoical maxim, that for one man to deprive another unjustly of any thing, or unjustly to promote his own advantage by the loss or disadvantage of another, is more contrary to nature, than death, than poverty, than all the misfortunes which can affect him"

Theory of Moral Sentiments

So fairness is efficiency, Smith was for unregulated Capitalism meaning non initiation of violence-that makes profit at others' expense, eg Mercantilist bailouts.

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill In the passage you quote, Smith says that it's contrary to nature to deprive people UNJUSTLY of any thing. Whether or in what form it is ever legitimate to deprive people of something is left completely open here. In particular, the quote is not, as you seem to believe, directed against taxation. The context, mentioning the antient Stoics, should really make it rather abundantly clear that nothing of the sort of "unregulated capitalism" is even remotely intended here.

[Nintendomanwill]

@langengro

What gift do you think Smith considered 'just' then, if not what one consents to give? Did he really consider that expropriation was just? This isn't Jeremy Bentham we're talking about here. Smith knew full well that service to others is what creates a functional society. That the gradation and valuation of one's service to others is transmuted through remuneration from voluntary exchange is a fact that all but the most ardent believers in profit at the expense of others will accept.

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill Let me reiterate: the passage you quoted has nothing to do with the topics in political economy that you are interested in. In that passage, Smith argues that the sense of duty is part of our natural endowment. He uses our common attitudes to theft as an example. So those sentiments are natural, not conventional. That the example happens to be theft, not adultery, lying, or what have you, is rather insubstantial to what he is trying to say.

[Nintendomanwill]

@langengro

But what is morality but what is productive from the standpoint of natural rights? (i.e. death is not productive, nor is rising production of things no-one wants, therefore laissez-faire capitalism is the best system to avert the war of all against all that we now deify as 'Socialism' when nothing could be more anti-social)

The issue is justice/fairness. Some think capitalism is unfair because people are born poor. But: What would be the results of equalisation/no property rights?

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill

Maybe you find it inappropriate that I prefer to discuss a concrete passage rather than address your political views. Of course, I do not doubt that some of the authors of the neo-liberal books you've read are claiming Smith as their forerunner. They have reason to do so. But if what you're claiming is that Smith's defense of free-market economy implies that he was opposed to public welfare (as Mandeville was), well, then it's up to you to give me a passage where he says so.

[Nintendomanwill]

The books I read predate 'neoliberalism' & are not Smithian as they are too complex to take partially erroneous accounts of economics as gospel. Rothbard for instance has little admiration for Smith.

The term 'neoliberal' furthermore is meaningless gibberish. I am not interested in the various forms of Statism. I believe in ontology, as all decent people do because with the scourge of anti-property, anti-society moral-relativism comes legal-abolsutism ie war, whether it be by guns or by ballot.

[langengro]

@Nintendomanwill I don't have any money in how you use terms like 'Socialism' or 'neoliberal'. And of course I don't mean to say that you have to take Smith or any other author as gospel. I have said twice that I don't want to get entangled in political discussion. What was at issue here is just whether it is historically sensible to say that Adam Smith was against charity - public or not, written in scare quotes or not. It is not sensible at all to say that, and I guess we agree here now.

[Nintendomanwill]

Was Ayn Rand against charity though? Certainly not in the sense of giving to others who you feel deserve your help. Obviously there's a philosophical difference in Smith's belief in charity and Ayn Rand's dislike of altruism-which by the way was a dislike of the false piety of the Socialists who want people to ignore profit, ignore their needs, sacrifice themselves for the State on the basis of not caring about oneself-but in terms of policy Smith would have been against forced charity.

[seanotube85]

This Ayn Rand philosophy is morally bankrupt and will drag down society like quicksand.

[wachman]

"Drag down society like quicksand"

Are you a Citizen of the US?? If so, then do you even know what your rights are? If you don't, then i encourage you to find out, that is if you want to fight for them...

[seanotube85]

I'm having trouble following your argument (if you are making an argument). Could you clear that up for me?

[Anteater1234567]

Having read the not exactly voluminous posts that you've made, I don't think you're quite in a position to criticise an absence of argument.

The point is that America's Declaration of Independence guarantees the rights which Ayn Rand's ethics is based on. If that ethics was going to drag America down, America would never have risen, because it was on the ethics of self interest-the right to liberty, life and the pursuit of your own happiness-that it was founded on in the first place.

[seanotube85]

So what if your self interest includes imposing a system of slave labor? Or what if your self interest includes working your labor force under wages which they can barely survive by? What exactly happens when self-interests collide? Whose freedom should be limited? Who decides? You need moral principals to guide these decisions, NOT selfishness.

[Anteater1234567]

Imposing a system of slave labour is an infringement of the rights of those who are enslaved, so is wrong. Working your labour force under low wages is a voluntary agreement between the two parties, so is moral. The employee can choose to quit your service. What is your moral principle? That employers should be forced to pay workers more than is due for the work they do?

Given the concept of the property right as a sovereign principle, you cannot have a conflict of interest that isn't resolved.

[Porojukaha]

@Anteater1234567 your arguing the case for capitalism. The only societal/governmental structure which does NOT pay the worker the bare minimum is capitalism. Communism, time and again has proven to make everyone poorer, most ESPECIALLY those at the bottom, whereas Capitalism, time and again, has proven to do the opposite. Yes, in capitalism, the company owners make more than the people at the bottom, but so do the beaurocrats in communism. in capitalism, you actually choose which class you are

[Anteater1234567]

@Porojukaha Did you misread what I wrote? I was speaking in favour of capitalism.

[aznmaplemaster]

@Anteater1234567 the problem is accepting the monetary system as the source of motivation. reject the money system, and you would see that for one to employ another for the sake of monetary gain is morally wrong and unsustainable according to humanistic terms. one should employ another and/or work for another on the motivation that being social creatures, teamwork offers better results, and the chemistry that takes places during teamwork is the source of happiness, which is the ultimate goal.

[Anteater1234567]

This may explain it to you more clearly: Rand believed that at no point in any interaction between humans there should be compulsion (unless a compulsion *not to use compulsion* itself). This renders slavery and forcing an employer to comply to a minimum wage as being both morally wrong.

Before you criticise a philosophy, it is useful to learn more deeply about it than a single element, a few simple sound-bites.

[seanotube85]

That's a little vague. Don't we all have a compulsion to live? I have no problem with her philosophy, but I have noticed that a lot of stupid rich people use it to justify their own greed and disregard for human suffering. But same with Jesus' teachings (not that I'm religious, but he seemed like he could've been a decent guy).

[Anteater1234567]

"I have no problem with her philosophy"

"This Ayn Rand philosophy is morally bankrupt"

So which is it?

The point is that somebody else's need, somebody else's suffering gives them no claim over my ability. If I want to help them, because I love them or just because I view human life as a value (heck, we water plants), that's fine, its up to me. If I don't, that's just the same. There is no moral imperative to do anything other than take responsibility to yourself.

[cobracarg]

@Anteater1234567 your last statement is what rand did the Austrian Economics and Mises.... she would criticize Mises on small quotes without getting all the info...

[Anteater1234567]

@cobracarg Agreed totally. It was a devastating blow that she didn't read properly in Austrian economics, or the criticisms of her philosophy. She could have achieved much more had she done so in terms of making her philosophy convincing and expanding the role of freedom.

She did have a not inconsiderable influence on the American right, which could have been far stronger had she understood (and then promoted) Austrian economics.

[Anteater1234567]

@cobracarg All of which, of course, can only count against her own decision making, not against her philosophy.

[hoodoo961]

I remember another guy in history who said we should exist to serve others. But I cannot remember what his name was. Maybe a pious conservative could remind me.

[hoodoo961]

The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Read it.

[3pmielec]

its mostly nonsense, maybe you should reread it.

[safetychoice]

Ayn Rand Center needs to fix their web links. None of them work. We live in the age of the internet folks. Social scientists can pontificate about philosophy all they want but if people can't find your website, forget it. This is the only way I found to bring this to your attention. It's pitiful. wake up and get with it.

[theresnofreelunch]

great video

I'm not too familiar with Ayn Rand or Adam Smith so i want to ask this question.

I believe that people should have the right to purse his her own self interest but I also believe that this selfishness can benefit society as a whole since in capitalism its naturally a win win.

start a business for self interest and create jobs.

so what does this make me?

[filmzo]

What would your intentions be? If it's to create jobs then you'd agree with Adam Smith, if it's to enjoy your business and profits you agree with Ayn Rand.

Practically it's very similar.

[theresnofreelunch]

thanks but I also have another question

Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as Anarchists

the word "libertarian" has changed over the years and there are different types of libertarians

who who was she actually condemning?

the modern libertarian we have today or anarchism?

[filmzo]

I assume she was refering to what I'd call an anarchist- ie someone who didn't believe in the courts or police (and in some cases property although I don't understand how that'd work). By modern standards, even by the standards of the day she believed in small government and that's what I/some people mean by libertarian.

[ebrawer]

She condemned the Libertarian movement as a generally pro-capitalism movement that has no fixed philosophical grounding. According to her, this leads to inevitable contradictions, and only hurts the cause of capitalism in the long run. For example, you have both anarchist and utilitarian libertarians. Rand held that anarchy would lead to gang-warfare, and that utilitarianism leads to collectivism. She held the virtue of selfishness as a primary, and deduced everything else from that.

[buffduff18]

As explained in the video it depends on how you justify it. The fact that you would create jobs is a natural reaction to you starting a business, but not necessarily a motive for starting a business. It's your reasoning that makes the difference-not the results of the reasoning.

[chopin8826]

but if someone wants to create a business to help himself and in turn help others I don't think that there is a problem with that. I know many successful people who preach that when they pursue there own self interest they end up helping people in the process which in turn, (after the money ahah) is a pleasant reward.

[Bulldog22031]

Ayn Rand

[Bigturns33]

you sound like and objectivist in the realms of selfishness as a vitrue, that is rational selfishness. Get Rands book.  The virtue of Selfishness. It doesnt mean not to give charity and such but its putting yourself first before giving to others and or those that you value first before giving to others

[aznmaplemaster]

@theresnofreelunch you start a business for the sake of survival in today's world. the monetary system is the foundation of modern society, and a business is one of the ways to have access to more 'freedom' but doing this have trade offs as you may have noticed, the employed labor of others. their freedoms are restricted for your own sake. something's wrong here. this dilemma stems from the societal framework... a monetary system. so if you were to reform this system, start with economic theory.

[jconnally0]

@theresnofreelunch Ayn Rand'

[theolcoyote]

Smith believed the free market would operate only on the grounds of nominal equality among people. THIS IS HARD TO MISS - it's pointed out in his most well-known work.

"ethically" speaking, Objectivists aren't any better than neo-cons. they're lucky to live in a relatively equal society, where their beliefs are tolerated.

anybody who thinks Objectivism isn't a pile of shit for mindless pigs can lick my undecided balls. and shouts to Adam Smith, economist and humanitarian.

[erikvdln]

Theolcoyote, one can not simultaneously be rational and make such attacks as you do.

Contrary to what you assume Objectivists are most tolerant of all: they care not what you think or do as long as you refrain from coercing them; and they will never force others to act ethically or in any other way. Objectivists understand that force can be justified only for self defence.

Please note the consistency in this.

[aweiss]

Objectivism is making judgments that aren't from a conscious entity? Why should we not look at things objectively, how is that a derogatory term?? lol

[veeling]

I would argue that equality is a fallacy, and the insistence of our society on subjecting us to this belief is the main reason our world is "a smoking ball of shit" - as George Carlin puts it.

I enjoy a good hamburger, but the overall societal contribution of a McDonalds worker is not the same as that of a cancer research scientist.

[theolcoyote]

this is absolute, categorical bullshit.

Smith believed in equality, something Objectivists reject because they have 2 inch peckers.

it's ironic. Rand meant to enhance the lot of the best and brightest, yet her followers have always been the most dull-witted, thoughtless perverts in the entire political spectrum.

[uturniaphobic]

I'd like to hear Adam Smith's take on Mortgage Backed Securities and free credit. Talk about perverting a concept.

thanks for the show, very interesting thoughts.

[tomdickens87]

errrrrr I don't think Adam Smith said you have to serve others at all, I think this guy is bull shitting lol.

[ShoelessLlama]

When your moral justification for a system has to do with the welfare of the collective as opposed to the individual you are essentially saying that, yes.  Gotta get me some of that Invisible Hand.

[tomdickens87]

No Adam Smith said that you must do what's best for yourself AND the group. The groups goal is driven however by individual motivation. It has nothing to do with serving anyone else, those you are serving are serving you. Adam Smith invented the invisible hand! He mentions it in Book II The Accumulation of Capital in The Wealth of Nations.

[ShoelessLlama]

Are you quoting A Beautiful Mind? :P

I am aware he invented the invisible hand...that's why I was mocking it.

When you justify capitalism on altruistic (collectivist) grounds you destroy the moral footing capitalism has. No man can serve two masters. The individual cannot achieve his goals by worrying about what is good for some nebulous "group". Groups are not entities by the way so they cannot have goals. Individuals have goals. A goal requires a mind. "Adam Smith needs revision."

[ShoelessLlama]

"those you are serving are serving you"

What does that even mean?

[tomdickens87]

meh I think you have me beat.

[jnycnuk]

con't:were privatized.

Iceland is now essentially bankrupt after the government took over its three major banks to prevent them from failing. It owes more than $60 billion overseas, about six times the value of its annual economic output. As a professor at London School of Economics said, "No Western country in peacetime has crashed so quickly and so badly."

[jnycnuk]

Iceland — better known for its geothermal hot springs, abundant fish, all-night raves and eclectic musicians such as Björk and Sigur Rós — has now become renowned for something else: It is the first catastrophic, and perhaps most unlikely, casualty of the 2008 economic and financial meltdown. Corporate taxes were cut from 50 percent down to 18 percent. Privatization and deregulation were driven directly through the prime minister's office, and the major banks

[shovelcharge]

Mr. Schwartz is good at answering questions

[shovelcharge]

great q/a to post on youtube.

[grantsinmypants2]

what is with the follow up question? it's almost as if he's saying: "you're not really saying that, are you Mr. Schwartz?"

[Sarrisan98]

Seemed to me to be more of clarification, like "So the bottom line is..." But you could be right as well.

[grantsinmypants2]

Could have been. Although, Mr. Schwartz offered nothing but the bottom line in his answer. It could have been innocent; perhaps he was in stunned disbelief.

[XOmniverse]

Man, that guy asking the question has no sense of humor at all.

[legendre007]

"Man, that guy asking the question has no sense of humor at all."

That deadpan look on his face made me laugh. He was like: I. Am. Not. Amused. :-P

[chopsky]

Haha, exactly.

What a putz.

[FreiheitKampfer]

mutualism, solidarity, empathy, compassion, which is voluntary through individualism

[AndyMH182]

Awesome. I've only read P.J. O'Rourke's book on the wealth of nations, not the tome itself.

Ayn Rand Institute. Post more videos please. <3