Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson recently took a swing at libertarians and Objectivists, declaring that they have a “mania” for “selfishness.” In this letter to the editor, Don Boudreaux annihilates him.
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Michael Gerson writes that "But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by
the mania of a single idea - a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness" ("Ayn
Rand’s adult-onset adolescence," April 22). I can't speak for Objectivists
(save to say that Mr. Gerson's portrait of them is a caricature). But I can say
that Mr. Gerson's understanding of libertarianism is comically erroneous; he has
clearly not read the best libertarian scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, Milton
Friedman, David Boaz, Sheldon Richman, or David Schmidtz.
Were Mr. Gerson to bother himself actually to read the works of such scholars,
he would find that libertarianism is grounded both in the value judgment that
individual freedom is a worthy end in itself AND in the theoretical and
empirical proposition that government poses the single greatest threat to
individual freedom, as well as the single greatest threat to the prosperity that
non-libertarians desire no less than do libertarians.
Does such a stance reflect a "mania" of single-minded "selfishness"? Is it
"adolescent" to want to be free to peacefully pursue one's own ends AND to want
everyone else to have such freedom? Of course not. True adolescent arrogance
and selfishness is reflected, not in libertarianism or in Objectivism, but in
those political philosophies that justify Jones's itch to interfere in Smith's
personal affairs and to confiscate some of what belongs to Smith.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
