                     11 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

   Natural Law, and the related concept of Natural Rights, play an
   important part in Libertarian and "anarcho"-capitalist ideology.
   Right-libertarians are not alone in claiming that their particular
   ideology is based on the "law of nature". Hitler, for one, claimed the
   same thing for Nazi ideology. So do numerous other demagogues,
   religious fanatics, and political philosophers. However, each likes to
   claim that only their "natural law" is the "real" one, all the others
   being subjective impositions. We will ignore these assertions (they are
   not arguments) and concentrate on explaining why natural law, in all
   its forms, is a myth. In addition, we will indicate its authoritarian
   implications.

   Instead of such myths anarchists urge people to "work it out for
   themselves" and realise that any ethical code is subjective and not a
   law of nature. If its a good "code", then others will become convinced
   of it by your arguments and their intellect. There is no need to claim
   its a function of "man's nature"!

   The following books discuss the subject of "Natural Law" in greater
   depth and are recommended for a fuller discussion of the issues raised
   in this section:

   Robert Anton Wilson, Natural Law and L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural
   Law.

   We should note that these books are written by people associated, to
   some degree, with right-libertarianism and, of course, we should point
   out that not all right-libertarians subscribe to "natural law" theories
   (David Friedman, for example, does not). However, such a position seems
   to be the minority in right-Libertarianism (Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and
   Murray Rothbard, among others, did subscribe to it). We should also
   point out that the Individualist Anarchist Lysander Spooner also
   subscribed to "natural laws" (which shows that, as we noted above, the
   concept is not limited to one particular theory or ideology). We
   present a short critique of Spooner's ideas on this subject in section
   [1]G.7.

   Lastly, it could be maintained that it is a common "straw man" to
   maintain that supporters of Natural Law argue that their Laws are like
   the laws of physics (and so are capable of stopping people's actions
   just as the law of gravity automatically stops people flying from the
   Earth). But that is the whole point -- using the term "Natural Law"
   implies that the moral rights and laws that its supporters argue for
   are to be considered just like the law of gravity (although they
   acknowledge, of course, that unlike gravity, their "natural laws" can
   be violated in nature). Far from saying that the rights they support
   are just that (i.e. rights they think are good) they try to associate
   them with universal facts. For example, Lysander Spooner (who, we must
   stress, used the concept of "Natural law" to oppose the transformation
   of America into a capitalist society, unlike Rand, Nozick and Rothbard
   who use it to defend capitalism) stated that:

     "the true definition of law is, that it is a fixed, immutable,
     natural principle; and not anything that man ever made, or can make,
     unmake, or alter. Thus we speak of the laws of matter, and the laws
     of mind; of the laws of gravitation, the laws of light, heat, and
     electricity. . .etc., etc. . . . The law of justice is just as
     supreme and universal in the moral world, as these others are in the
     mental or physical world; and is as unalterable as are these by any
     human power. And it is just as false and absurd to talk of anybody's
     having the power to abolish the law of justice, and set up their own
     in its stead, as it would be to talk of their having the power to
     abolish the law of gravitation, or any other natural laws of the
     universe, and set up their own will in the place of them." [A Letter
     to Grover Cleveland, p. 88]

   Rothbard and other capitalist supporters of "Natural Law" make the same
   sort of claims (as we will see). Now, why, if they are aware of the
   fact that unlike gravity their "Natural Laws" can be violated, do they
   use the term at all? Benjamin Tucker said that "Natural Law" was a
   "religious" concept -- and this provides a clue. To say "Do not violate
   these rights, otherwise I will get cross" does not have quite the same
   power as "Do not violate these rights, they are facts of natural and
   you are violating nature" (compare to "Do not violate these laws, or
   you will go to hell"). So to point out that "Natural Law" is not the
   same as the law of gravity (because it has to be enforced by humans) is
   not attacking some kind of "straw man" -- it is exposing the fact that
   these "Natural Laws" are just the personal prejudices of those who hold
   them. If they do not want then to be exposed as such then they should
   call their laws what they are -- personal ethical laws -- rather than
   compare them to the facts of nature.

11.1 Why the term "Natural Law" in the first place?

   Murray Rothbard claims that "Natural Law theory rests on the insight. .
   . that each entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct
   'nature,' which can be investigated by man's reason" [For a New
   Liberty, p. 25] and that "man has rights because they are natural
   rights. They are grounded in the nature of man." [The Ethics of
   Liberty, p. 155]

   To put it bluntly, this form of "analysis" was originated by Aristotle
   and has not been used by science for centuries. Science investigates by
   proposing theories and hypotheses to explain empirical observations,
   testing and refining them by experiment. In stark contrast, Rothbard
   invents definitions ("distinct" "natures") and then draws conclusions
   from them. Such a method was last used by the medieval Church and is
   devoid of any scientific method. It is, of course, a fiction. It
   attempts to deduce the nature of a "natural" society from a priori
   considerations of the "innate" nature of human beings, which just means
   that the assumptions necessary to reach the desired conclusions have
   been built into the definition of "human nature." In other words,
   Rothbard defines humans as having the "distinct and specific
   properties" that, given his assumptions, will allow his dogma (private
   state capitalism) to be inferred as the "natural" society for humans.

   Rothbard claims that "if A, B, C, etc., have differing attributes, it
   follows that they have different natures." [The Ethics of Liberty, p.
   9] Does this means that as every individual is unique (have different
   attributes), they have different natures? Skin and hair colour are
   different attributes, does this mean that red haired people have
   different natures than blondes? That black people have different
   natures than white (and such a "theory" of "natural law" was used to
   justify slavery -- yes, slaves are human but they have "different
   natures" than their masters and so slavery is okay). Of course Rothbard
   aggregates "attributes" to species level, but why not higher? Humans
   are primates, does that mean we have the same natures are monkeys or
   gorillas? We are also mammals as well, we share many of the same
   attributes as whales and dogs. Do we have similar natures?

   But this is by the way. To continue we find that after defining certain
   "natures," Rothbard attempts to derive "Natural Rights and Laws" from
   them. However, these "Natural Laws" are quite strange, as they can be
   violated in nature! Real natural laws (like the law of gravity) cannot
   be violated and therefore do not need to be enforced. The "Natural
   Laws" the "Libertarian" desires to foist upon us are not like this.
   They need to be enforced by humans and the institutions they create.
   Hence, Libertarian "Natural Laws" are more akin to moral prescriptions
   or juridical laws. However, this does not stop Rothbard explicitly
   "plac[ing]" his "Natural Laws" "alongside physical or 'scientific'
   natural laws." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 42]

   So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it
   gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and
   prejudices to a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise
   or even think about them. The term smacks of religion, where "Natural
   Law" has replaced "God's Law." The latter fiction gave the priest power
   over believers. "Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian
   ideologist power over the people that he or she wants to rule.

   How can one be against a "Natural Law" or a "Natural Right"? It is
   impossible. How can one argue against gravity? If private property, for
   example, is elevated to such a level, who would dare argue against it?
   Ayn Rand listed having landlords and employers along with "the laws of
   nature." They are not similar: the first two are social relationships
   which have to be imposed by the state; the "laws of nature" (like
   gravity, needing food, etc.) are facts which do not need to be imposed.
   Rothbard claims that "the natural fact is that labour service is indeed
   a commodity." [Op. Cit., p. 40] However, this is complete nonsense --
   labour service as a commodity is a social fact, dependent on the
   distribution of property within society, its social customs and so
   forth. It is only "natural" in the sense that it exists within a given
   society (the state is also "natural" as it also exists within nature at
   a given time). But neither wage slavery or the state is "natural" in
   the sense that gravity is natural or a human having two arms is.
   Indeed, workers at the dawn of capitalism, faced with selling their
   labour services to another, considered it as decidedly "unnatural" and
   used the term "wage slavery" to describe it!

   Thus, where and when a "fact" appears is essential. For example,
   Rothbard claims that "[a]n apple, let fall, will drop to the ground;
   this we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple."
   [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 9] Actually, we do not "acknowledge"
   anything of the kind. We acknowledge that the apple was subject to the
   force of gravity and that is why it fell. The same apple, "let fall" in
   a space ship would not drop to the floor. Has the "nature" of the apple
   changed? No, but the situation it is in has. Thus any attempt to
   generate abstract "natures" requires you to ignore reality in favour of
   ideals.

   Because of the confusion its usage creates, we are tempted to think
   that the use of "Natural Law" dogma is an attempt to stop thinking, to
   restrict analysis, to force certain aspects of society off the
   political agenda by giving them a divine, everlasting quality.

   Moreover, such an "individualist" account of the origins of rights will
   always turn on a muddled distinction between individual rationality and
   some vague notion of rationality associated with membership of the
   human species. How are we to determine what is rational for an
   individual as and individual and what is rational for that same
   individual as a human being? It is hard to see that we can make such a
   distinction for "[i]f I violently interfere with Murray Rothbard's
   freedom, this may violate the 'natural law' of Murray Rothbard's needs,
   but it doesn't violate the 'natural law' of my needs." [L.A. Rollins,
   The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 28] Both parties, after all, are human
   and if such interference is, as Rothbard claims, "antihuman" then why?
   "If it helps me, a human, to advance my life, then how can it be
   unequivocally 'antihuman'?" [L. A. Rollins, Op. Cit., p. 27] Thus
   "natural law" is contradictory as it is well within the bounds of human
   nature to violate it.

   This means that in order to support the dogma of "Natural Law," the
   cultists must ignore reality. Ayn Rand claims that "the source of man's
   rights is. . .the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man." But Rand
   (like Rothbard) defines "Man" as an "entity of a specific kind -- a
   rational being" [The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 94-95]. Therefore she
   cannot account for irrational human behaviours (such as those that
   violate "Natural Laws"), which are also products of our "nature." To
   assert that such behaviours are not human is to assert that A can be
   not-A, thus contradicting the law of identity. Her ideology cannot even
   meet its own test.

11.2 But "Natural Law" provides protection for individual rights from violation
by the State. Those who are against Natural Law desire total rule by the state.

   The second statement represents a common "Libertarian" tactic. Instead
   of addressing the issues, they accuse an opponent of being a
   "totalitarian" (or the less sinister "statist"). In this way, they hope
   to distract attention from, and so avoid discussing, the issue at hand
   (while at the same time smearing their opponent). We can therefore
   ignore the second statement.

   Regarding the first, "Natural Law" has never stopped the rights of
   individuals from being violated by the state. Such "laws" are as much
   use as a chocolate fire-guard. If "Natural Rights" could protect one
   from the power of the state, the Nazis would not have been able to
   murder six million Jews. The only thing that stops the state from
   attacking people's rights is individual (and social) power -- the
   ability and desire to protect oneself and what one considers to be
   right and fair. As the anarchist Rudolf Rocker pointed out:

     "Political [or individual] rights do not exist because they have
     been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have
     become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair
     them will be meet with the violent resistance of the populace. . .
     .One compels respect from others when he knows how to defend his
     dignity as a human being. . . .The people owe all the political
     rights and privileges which we enjoy today, in greater or lesser
     measure, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own
     strength." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 64]

   Of course, if is there are no "Natural Rights," then the state has no
   "right" to murder you or otherwise take away what are commonly regarded
   as human rights. One can object to state power without believing in
   "Natural Law."

11.3 Why is "Natural Law" authoritarian?

   Rights, far from being fixed, are the product of social evolution and
   human action, thought and emotions. What is acceptable now may become
   unacceptable in the future. Slavery, for example, was long considered
   "natural." In fact, John Locke, the "father" of "Natural Rights," was
   heavily involved in the slave trade. He made a fortune in violating
   what is today regarded as a basic human right: not to be enslaved. Many
   in Locke's day claimed that slavery was a "Natural Law." Few would say
   so now.

   Thomas Jefferson indicates exactly why "Natural Law" is authoritarian
   when he wrote "[s]ome men look at constitutions with sanctimonious
   reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be
   touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more
   than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. . .laws
   and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
   mind. . . as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
   discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with
   the times. . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat
   which fitted him when a boy as civilised society to remain forever
   under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

   The "Natural Law" cult desires to stop the evolutionary process by
   which new rights are recognised. Instead they wish to fix social life
   into what they think is good and right, using a form of argument that
   tries to raise their ideology above critique or thought. Such a wish is
   opposed to the fundamental feature of liberty: the ability to think for
   oneself. Michael Bakunin writes "the liberty of man consists solely in
   this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognised them
   as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by
   any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or
   individual." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 227]

   Thus anarchism, in contrast to the "natural law" cult, recognises that
   "natural laws" (like society) are the product of individual evaluation
   of reality and social life and are, therefore, subject to change in the
   light of new information and ideas (Society "progresses slowly through
   the moving power of individual initiative" [Bakunin, The Political
   Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 166] and so, obviously, do social rights and
   customs). Ethical or moral "laws" (which is what the "Natural Law" cult
   is actually about) is not a product of "human nature" or abstract
   individuals. Rather, it is a social fact, a creation of society and
   human interaction. In Bakunin's words, "moral law is not an individual
   but a social fact, a creation of society" and any "natural laws" are
   "inherent in the social body" (and so, we must add, not floating
   abstractions existing in "man's nature"). [Ibid., p. 125, p. 166]

   The case for liberty and a free society is based on the argument that,
   since every individual is unique, everyone can contribute something
   that no one else has noticed or thought about. It is the free
   interaction of individuals which allows them, along with society and
   its customs and rights, to evolve, change and develop. "Natural Law,"
   like the state, tries to arrest this evolution. It replaces creative
   inquiry with dogma, making people subject to yet another god,
   destroying critical thought with a new rule book.

   In addition, if these "Natural Laws" are really what they are claimed
   to be, they are necessarily applicable to all of humanity (Rothbard
   explicitly acknowledges this when he wrote that "one of the notable
   attributes of natural law" is "its applicability to all men, regardless
   of time or place" [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 42]). In other words,
   every other law code must (by definition) be "against nature" and there
   exists one way of life (the "natural" one). The authoritarian
   implications of such arrogance is clear. That the Dogma of Natural Law
   was only invented a few hundred years ago, in one part of the planet,
   does not seem to bother its advocates. Nor does the fact that for the
   vast majority of human existence, people have lived in societies which
   violated almost all of their so-called "Natural Laws" To take one
   example, before the late Neolithic, most societies were based on
   usufruct, or free access to communally held land and other resources
   [see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom]. Thus for millennia, all
   human beings lived in violation of the supposed "Natural Law" of
   private property -- perhaps the chief "law" in the "Libertarian"
   universe.

   If "Natural Law" did exist, then all people would have discovered these
   "true" laws years ago. To the contrary, however, the debate is still
   going on, with (for example) fascists and "Libertarians" each claiming
   "the laws of nature" (and socio-biology) as their own.

11.4 Does "Natural Law" actually provides protection for individual liberty?

   But, it seems fair to ask, does "natural law" actually respect
   individuals and their rights (i.e. liberty)? We think not. Why?

   According to Rothbard, "the natural law ethic states that for man,
   goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfils or thwarts what
   is best for man's nature." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 10] But, of
   course, what may be "good" for "man" may be decidedly bad for men (and
   women). If we take the example of the sole oasis in a desert (see
   section [2]4.2) then, according to Rothbard, the property owner having
   the power of life and death over others is "good" while, if the
   dispossessed revolt and refuse to recognise his "property", this is
   "bad"! In other words, Rothbard's "natural law" is good for some people
   (namely property owners) while it can be bad for others (namely the
   working class). In more general terms, this means that a system which
   results in extensive hierarchy (i.e. archy, power) is "good" (even
   though it restricts liberty for the many) while attempts to remove
   power (such as revolution and the democratisation of property rights)
   is "bad". Somewhat strange logic, we feel.

   However such a position fails to understand why we consider coercion to
   be wrong/unethical. Coercion is wrong because it subjects an individual
   to the will of another. It is clear that the victim of coercion is
   lacking the freedom that the philosopher Isaiah Berlin describes in the
   following terms:

     "I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself, not on external
     forces of whatever kind. I wish to be an instrument of my own, not
     of other men's, acts of will. I wish to be a subject, not an object;
     to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not
     by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside. I wish to be
     somebody, not nobody; a doer -- deciding, not being decided for,
     self-directed and not acted upon by external nature or by other mean
     as if I were a thing, or an animal, or a slave incapable of playing
     a human role, that is, of conceiving goals and policies of my own
     and realising them." [Four Essays on Liberty, p. 131]

   Or, as Alan Haworth points out, "we have to view coercion as a
   violation of what Berlin calls positive freedom." [Anti-Libertarianism,
   p. 48]

   Thus, if a system results in the violation of (positive) liberty by its
   very nature -- namely, subject a class of people to the will of another
   class (the worker is subject to the will of their boss and is turned
   into an order-taker) -- then it is justified to end that system. Yes,
   it is "coercion" is dispossess the property owner -- but "coercion"
   exists only for as long as they desire to exercise power over others.
   In other words, it is not domination to remove domination! And remember
   it is the domination that exists in coercion which fuels our hatred of
   it, thus "coercion" to free ourselves from domination is a necessary
   evil in order to stop far greater evils occurring (as, for example, in
   the clear-cut case of the oasis monopoliser).

   Perhaps it will be argued that domination is only bad when it is
   involuntary, which means that it is only the involuntary nature of
   coercion that makes it bad, not the domination it involves. By this
   argument wage slavery is not domination as workers voluntarily agree to
   work for a capitalist (after all, no one puts a gun to their heads) and
   any attempt to overthrow capitalist domination is coercion and so
   wrong. However, this argument ignores that fact that circumstances
   force workers to sell their liberty and so violence on behalf of
   property owners is not (usually) required -- market forces ensure that
   physical force is purely "defensive" in nature. And as we argued in
   section [3]2.2, even Rothbard recognised that the economic power
   associated with one class of people being dispossessed and another
   empowered by this fact results in relations of domination which cannot
   be considered "voluntary" by any stretch of the imagination (although,
   of course, Rothbard refuses to see the economic power associated with
   capitalism -- when its capitalism, he cannot see the wood for the trees
   -- and we are ignoring the fact that capitalism was created by
   extensive use of coercion and violence -- see section [4]8).

   Thus, "Natural law" and attempts to protect individuals rights/liberty
   and see a world in which people are free to shape their own lives are
   fatally flawed if they do not recognise that private property is
   incompatible with these goals. This is because the existence of
   capitalist property smuggles in power and so domination (the
   restriction of liberty, the conversion of some into order-givers and
   the many into order-takers) and so Natural Law does not fulfil its
   promise that each person is free to pursue their own goals. The
   unqualified right of property will lead to the domination and
   degradation of large numbers of people (as the oasis monopoliser so
   graphically illustrates).

   And we stress that anarchists have no desire to harm individuals, only
   to change institutions. If a workplace is taken over by its workers,
   the owners are not harmed physically. If the oasis is taken from the
   monopoliser, the ex-monopoliser becomes like other users of the oasis
   (although probably disliked by others). Thus anarchists desire to treat
   people as fairly as possible and not replace one form of coercion and
   domination with another -- individuals must never be treated as
   abstractions (if they have power over you, destroy what creates the
   relation of domination, not the individual, in other words! And if this
   power can be removed without resorting to force, so much the better --
   a point which social and individualist anarchists disagree on, namely
   whether capitalism can be reformed away or not comes directly from
   this. As the Individualists think it can, they oppose the use of force.
   Most social anarchists think it cannot, and so support revolution).

   This argument may be considered as "utilitarian" (the greatest good for
   the greatest number) and so treats people not as "ends in themselves"
   but as "means to an end". Thus, it could be argued, "natural law" is
   required to ensure that all (as opposed to some, or many, or the
   majority of) individuals are free and have their rights protected.

   However, it is clear that "natural law" can easily result in a minority
   having their freedom and rights respected, while the majority are
   forced by circumstances (created by the rights/laws produced by
   applying "natural law" we must note) to sell their liberty and rights
   in order to survive. If it is wrong to treat anyone as a "means to an
   end", then it is equally wrong to support a theory or economic system
   that results in people having to negate themselves in order to live. A
   respect for persons -- to treat them as ends and never as means -- is
   not compatible with private property.

   The simple fact is that there are no easy answers -- we need to weight
   up our options and act on what we think is best. Yes, such subjectivism
   lacks the "elegance" and simplicity of "natural law" but it reflects
   real life and freedom far better. All in all, we must always remember
   that what is "good" for man need not be good for people. "Natural law"
   fails to do this and stands condemned.

11.5 But Natural Law was discovered, not invented!

   This statement truly shows the religious nature of the Natural Law
   cult. To see why its notion of "discovery" is confused, let us consider
   the Law of Gravity. Newton did not "discover" the law of gravity, he
   invented a theory which explained certain observed phenomena in the
   physical world. Later Einstein updated Newton's theories in ways that
   allowed for a better explanation of physical reality. Thus, unlike
   "Natural Law," scientific laws can be updated and changed as our
   knowledge changes and grows. As we have already noted, however,
   "Natural Laws" cannot be updated because they are derived from fixed
   definitions (Rothbard is pretty clear on this, he states that it is
   "[v]ery true" that natural law is "universal, fixed and immutable" and
   so are "'absolute' principles of justice" and that they are
   "independent of time and place" [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 19]).
   However, what he fails to understand is that what the "Natural Law"
   cultists are "discovering" are simply the implications of their own
   definitions, which in turn simply reflect their own prejudices and
   preferences.

   Since "Natural Laws" are thus "unchanging" and are said to have been
   "discovered" centuries ago, it's no wonder that many of its followers
   look for support in socio-biology, claiming that their "laws" are part
   of the genetic structure of humanity. But socio-biology has dubious
   scientific credentials for many of its claims. Also, it has
   authoritarian implications exactly like Natural Law. Murray Bookchin
   rightly characterises socio-biology as "suffocatingly rigid; it not
   only impedes action with the autocracy of a genetic tyrant but it
   closes the door to any action that is not biochemically defined by its
   own configuration. When freedom is nothing more than the recognition of
   necessity. . .we discover the gene's tyranny over the greater totality
   of life. . .when knowledge becomes dogma (and few movements are more
   dogmatic than socio-biology) freedom is ultimately denied."
   ["Socio-biology or Social Ecology", in Which way for the Ecology
   Movement? pp. 49 - 75, p. 60]

   In conclusion the doctrine of Natural Law, far from supporting
   individual freedom, is one of its greatest enemies. By locating
   individual rights within "Man's Nature," it becomes an unchanging set
   of dogmas. Do we really know enough about humanity to say what are
   "Natural" and universal Laws, applicable forever? Is it not a rejection
   of critical thinking and thus individual freedom to do so?

11.6 Why is the notion of "discovery" contradictory?

   Ayn Rand indicates the illogical and contradictory nature of the
   concepts of "discovering" "natural law" and the "natural rights" this
   "discovery" argument creates when she stated that her theory was
   "objective." Her "Objectivist" political theory "holds that good is
   neither an attribute of 'things in themselves' nor man's emotional
   state, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness
   according to a rational standard of value. . . The objective theory
   holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man - and
   that it must be discovered, not invented, by man." [Capitalism: The
   Unknown Ideal, p. 22]

   However, this is playing with words. If something is "discovered" then
   it has always been there and so is an intrinsic part of it. If "good"
   is "discovered" by "man" then "good" exists independently of people --
   it is waiting to be "discovered." In other words, "good" is an
   attribute of "man as man," of "things in themselves" (in addition, such
   a theory also implies that there is just one possible interpretation of
   what is "good" for all humanity). This can be seen when Rand talks
   about her system of "objective" values and rights.

   When discussing the difference between "subjective," "intrinsic" and
   "objective" values Rand noted that "intrinsic" and "subjective"
   theories "make it possible for a man to believe what is good is
   independent of man's mind and can be achieved by physical force." [Op.
   Cit., p. 22] In other words, intrinsic and subjective values justify
   tyranny. However, her "objective" values are placed squarely in "Man's
   Nature" -- she states that "[i]ndividual rights are the means of
   subordinating society to moral law" and that "the source of man's
   rights is man's nature." [Op. Cit., p. 320, p. 322]

   She argues that the "intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent
   in certain things or actions, as such, regardless of their context and
   consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the
   actors and subjects involved." [Op. Cit., p. 21] According to the
   Concise Oxford Dictionary, "intrinsic" is defined as "inherent,"
   "essential," "belonging naturally" and defines "nature" as "a thing's,
   or person's, innate or essential qualities or character." In other
   words, if, as Rand maintains, man's rights are the product of "man's
   nature" then such rights are intrinsic! And if, as Rand maintains, such
   rights are the "extension of morality into the social system" then
   morality itself is also intrinsic.

   Again, her ideology fails to meet its own tests -- and opens the way
   for tyranny. This can be seen by her whole hearted support for wage
   slavery and her total lack of concern how it, and concentrations of
   wealth and power, affect the individuals subjected to them. For, after
   all, what is "good" is "inherent" in capitalism, regardless of the
   context, consequences, benefits or injuries it may cause to the actors
   and subjects involved.

   The key to understanding her contradictory and illogical ideology lies
   in her contradictory use of the word "man." Sometimes she uses it to
   describe individuals but usually it is used to describe the human race
   collectively ("man's nature," "man's consciousness"). But "Man" does
   not have a consciousness, only individuals do. Man is an abstraction,
   it is individuals who live and think, not "Man." Such "Man worship" --
   like Natural Law -- has all the markings of a religion.

   As Max Stirner argues "liberalism is a religion because it separates my
   essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts 'Man' to the
   same extent as any other religion does to God. . . it sets me beneath
   Man." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 176] Indeed, he "who is infatuated with
   Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends,
   and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person,
   but an ideal, a spook." [Op. Cit., p.79]

   Rand argues that we must evaluate "the facts of reality by man's
   consciousness according to a rational standard of value" but who
   determines that value? She states that "[v]alues are not determined by
   fiat nor by majority vote" [p. 24] but, however, neither can they be
   determined by "man" or "man's consciousness" because "man" does not
   exist. Individuals exist and have consciousness and because they are
   unique have different values (but as we argued in section [5]A.2.19,
   being social creatures these values are generalised across individuals
   into social, i.e. objective, values). So, the abstraction "man" does
   not exist and because of this we see the healthy sight of different
   individuals convincing others of their ideas and theories by
   discussion, presenting facts and rational debate. This can be best seen
   in scientific debate.

   The aim of the scientific method is to invent theories that explain
   facts, the theories are not part of the facts but created by the
   individual's mind in order to explain those facts. Such scientific
   "laws" can and do change in light of new information and new thought.
   In other words, the scientific method is the creation of subjective
   theories that explain the objective facts. Rand's method is the
   opposite - she assumes "man's nature," "discovers" what is "good" from
   those assumptions and draws her theories by deduction from that. This
   is the exact opposite of the scientific method and, as we noted above,
   comes to us straight from the Roman Catholic church.

   It is the subjective revolt by individuals against what is considered
   "objective" fact or "common sense" which creates progress and develops
   ethics (what is considered "good" and "right") and society. This, in
   turn, becomes "accepted fact" until the next free thinker comes along
   and changes how we view the world by presenting new evidence,
   re-evaluating old ideas and facts or exposing the evil effects
   associated with certain ideas (and the social relationships they
   reflect) by argument, fact and passion. Attempts to impose "an
   evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness" would be a
   death blow to this process of critical thought, development and
   evaluation of the facts of reality by individual's consciousness. Human
   thought would be subsumed by dogma.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secG7.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append134.html#secf42
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html#secf22
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append138.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA2.html#seca219
