Search results

Here Marx's philosophy is dissected from the angle of bourgeois capitalism which he, Marx, sought to overcome. His social, political and economic ideas are criticised. Although it is noted that Marx wanted to ameliorate human suffering, the result turned out to be Utopian, contrary to his own intentions. Contrary to Marx, it is individualism that makes the best sense and capitalism that holds out the best hope for coping with most of the problems he sought to solve. Marx's philosophy is alluring but flawed at a very basic level, namely, where it denies the individuality of each person and treats humanity as “an organic body”. Capitalism, while by no means out to guarantee a perfect society, is the best setting for the realisation of the diverse but often equally noble human goals of its membership.

Responds to the arguments proposed by Dr. Tibor R. Machan in “Foetal rights: the implication of a supposed ought”. Refutes the claims that the libertarian pro‐life position necessarily implies an unacceptable invasion of the rights of adult humans.

In [ancient moral] philosophy the duties of human life were treated of as subservient to the happiness and perfection of human life. … In the ancient philosophy the perfection of virtue was represented as necessarily productive to the person who possessed it, of the most perfect happiness in this life. In the modern philosophy it was frequently represented as almost always inconsistent with any degree of happiness in this life, and heaven was to be earned by penance and mortification…not by the liberal, generous, and spirited conduct of a man. …By far the most important of all the different branches of philosophy became in this manner by far the most corrupted. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations)

The objective of this essay is to recast the familiar subjective value theory underlying neo‐classical (including Austrian) economics as more of an objectivist albeit individual value theory. The body of scientific economics remains intact, as well as the political economic implication of value diversity (which the price system of the marketplace alone can fully accommodate). What changes is the view that economic science must assume the meta‐ethical position of subjectivism and non‐cognitivism, a position that certainly has no place within economics proper and one that aside from facing many philosophical difficulties is also incredible from the viewpoint of common sense (thus posing as an obstacle to the plausibility of neo‐classical economics when introduced into ordinary political discourse and evaluated comparatively (e.g. vis‐à‐vis varieties of Marxist economics).

Disputes the view of the communitarians, a recently emerged group of political theorists that individualism, especially the theory of natural individual rights, stands as an obstacle to desirable community life for human beings. Argues that the only objection of individualism to communitarianism rests on the communitarian endorsement of coercion and violation of individual rights; in point of fact, individualism, with a proper understanding of human nature, supports community life that is voluntarily chosen; such communities have greater solidarity than those established by coercion. Uses the topic of environmentalism, which might offer strong support for coercive communitarianism, to illustrate how an individualist analysis gives strong support to the values of community life; indeed, stronger support than communitarianism because individual rights are very powerful legal trumps on such environmentally destructive acts as dumping, rationing, and otherwise merely blunting the injuries of pollution.

Communism appears to have a “better image” in the West than fascism and Nazism. The apparent reasons for this are revealed and commented on, and the conclusion is that the West should not be misled into a compromise with Soviet communism.

In business and the culture hospitable to it, not much is more important than the moral status of entrepreneurship. If the entrepreneur is a rascal, a rogue, the system that gives such a person a home is surely tainted. Critics of capitalism such as Robert Kuttner and Earl Shorris have made this point repeatedly in their various prominently published books. They follow the likes of Karl Marx, only unlike Marx they see nothing redeeming about the free market. (Marx thought it was a vital stage of humanity’s development!)

Aims to question whether political principles, for example, those of socialism or libertarianism, have lasting significance.Design/methodology/approach – Lays out a case for the stability of at least one variety of political principle, namely that of libertarianism or classical liberalism and argues that the normative version of these positions does manage to have lasting stability and significance.Findings – There is much that is true that people do not necessarily attend to – including certain principles of political life. It may well be true that everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet many of us reject this fact. Even judges and Supreme Court justices often fail to rule in a manner consistent with these principles.Originality/value – Provides insights concerning the nature of political and ethical principles.

What sets Rand apart from other critics of Marx is that she is a philosophical/ethical/ political individualist who rejects the claim by Marx that “The human essence is the true collectivity of man” and advances, instead, a neo‐Aristotelian theory to the effect that each of us is a human individual – that being human is essentially to be self‐directed and that the kind of society that is truly suited to human living must secure the individual his or her sovereignty.

Examines how the different concepts of rationality have been used (and confused) by economists who have followed modern philosophers′ understanding of human reason. Offers a philosophical discussion as a means to understanding rationality and its incumbent problems of interpretation.