The following is a transcript of a speech I gave last night at the
Junto Club of New York City. (Junto was originally founded by
classical liberal great Benjamin Franklin for the purpose of self-
improvement for the leading citizens of Philadelphia. The club was
revived by millionaire stockbroker Victor Niederhoffer 11 years ago
and primarily concerns itself with Objectivism, libertarianism, and
investing.)


'Liberalism vs. Objectivism'

Almost everyone in this room tonight is aware that there are
currently two radical, avant-garde intellectual movements in the
world today which seem poised to transform the planet. These
ideologies, if not crusades, are called libertarianism and
Objectivism -- and they're closely related.

But few here tonight are aware that there's almost certainly soon to
be a THIRD avant-garde intellectual movement on the world scene. This
new one is closely related to the other two, but it's more powerful
than both combined. The name of this new movement and ideology
is "liberalism."

Now, I don't mean leftism or socialism by this term -- as everyone
here has already guessed -- but rather a purified and perfected form
of classical or Enlightenment or Western liberalism. And, yes, such a
pure, perfect thing DOES exist. But how does it differ from
libertarianism and Objectivism?

Well, libertarianism is mainly a political movement, and as such
somewhat limited ideologically. Objectivism, in turn, is mainly a
philosophical movement, and thus a bit limited itself. But liberalism
is a CULTURAL movement -- and thus in societal and ideological terms
is all-encompassing and limitless BY DEFINITION. The future of the
world belongs, in my judgment -- not to libertarianism or
Objectivism -- but to an updated and definitive version of 1700s
classical liberalism.

Now, the main intellectual rival to liberalism is Objectivism, with
which liberalism is in overwhelming agreement. But not total. So,
what are the concretes and details of their disagreement?

It helps first and foremost to DEFINE liberalism. Unfortunately this
isn't easy to do -- as even the current Encyclopedia Britannica
admits. Liberalism is a kind of end, ultimate, and definitive idea
and ideal -- and thus it's almost as slippery and ephemeral as the
phenomena of life, truth, and happiness.

But in general liberalism can be described as "the culture of
reason." As such it began 2600 years ago. Then, the Greeks invented
THREE things, not two as is commonly supposed in libertarian and
Objectivist circles. They discovered and invented science, philosophy
and REASON -- with reason far the most important and the other two
merely subsets of it.

Liberalism can further be defined as the philosophy of reason, the
ethics of individualism, and the politics of freedom. Note how
general, generic, and all-embracing these terms are.

Liberalism can further be explained as a culture of fully-realized
and complete civilization. It embodies and can be used to create a
society entirely free of, or "liberated" from, what anthropologists
call the pre-city, pre-3300 BC, tribalist world of "ignorance and
superstition."

Liberalism could also be further described as complete freedom of
body, mind, and soul. This means freedom from all phenomena that
would enslave or even minutely inhibit them. This liberation takes
man as close to omniscience and omnipotence as is humanly or
sentiently possible.

Still another way to describe liberalism -- and that Reason which is
its foundation, core, and totality -- is the abstract philosophy of
reasonism, empiricism, objectivism -- with a small "O" -- nominalism,
materialism, and mechanism.

Finally, and most specifically, I would define liberalism as: the
philosophy of reason, rationality, logic, and science; the morality
of individualism, self-interest, and personal happiness; the politics
of liberty, justice, and individual rights; the esthetics of
vivacity, dynamism, and heroicism; and the spirituality of
transcendence, the sublime, and the infinite.

All the above, obviously, contradicts the CURRENT meaning of the term
which says classical liberalism is either the politics of Locke or --
if we're very lucky -- the politics and philosophy of Bacon, Hobbes,
Newton, and Locke. But virtually NO-ONE mentions the classic Greeks
and Romans, and virtually N0-ONE thinks of this concept in terms of
culture.

And yet an early version of "the culture of reason" DID exist with
the Greco-Romans. Everything I described above DID begin with the
first three reasonists and philosophes: Thales, Anaximander, and
Anaximenes about 600 BC. And not only did liberalism begin then, it
reached a fairly high apogee with the democracy and free speech of
the Greeks; and the natural law and the rule of law of the Romans.
Their culture -- at least among the aristocracy -- was often quite
rational, individualist, and free. Quite libertarian and Objectivist,
even.

This brings us back to liberalism itself. It could be thought of,
crudely, as a kind of "big tent" Objectivism. ANYTHING which is 100%
rational in culture and philosophy is properly thought of as liberal.

Now, lest anyone here become too apprehensive and defensive, it's
certainly worth noting that Objectivism is the most rational and
liberal philosophy ever invented BY FAR. It easily bests the
ideologies of Aristotle and company, and of Locke and company. And
yet...

Objectivism itself is NOT 100% rational nor liberal. Maybe 95%.

Objectivism isn't so much wrong in its belief system --altho' it is
that -- as it is in its tone, atmosphere, approach, organization and
leadership. The main illiberalism of Objectivism lies, not with the
philosophy itself, but with the movement.

This is a subtle point, but a very important one, and worth sketching
here. Objectivism, in my view, is irrational and illiberal in at
least four general ways:

#1. Objectivism is generally timid, inhibited and conservative -- not
free-thinking, open-minded, high-spirited, dynamic, and exuberant, as
it should be.

#2. Objectivism is semi-cultist still: "brave, fair, and true"
dissidents still get "purged" and "excommunicated" as being "enemies"
of Objectivism and intellectually dishonest -- even tho' it's usually
the expungers and corrupt would-be puritans who are thus.

#3. Objectivism is not near respective enough of the limitless
possibilities and power or science. Science is philosophy's and
Objectivism's best friend and strongest ally. Yet Ayn Rand, the
founder of Objectivism, doubted Evolution, Relativity, and the Big
Bang. She was, in the words of Nathaniel Branden, "curiously
conservative" about seminal scientific issues which have enormous
cultural implications.

#4. Objectivism is still suffering from the founder's moralizing,
psychologizing, judgementalism, emotional repression, sexual
repression, and over-intellectualism-yet-under-scholasticism. Rand
and Objectivism don't sufficiently respect nor believe in the human
heart and soul. They don't much want you to trust your instincts or
gut. They don't really want you to follow your heart and free
spririt -- and try to live out your dreams.

But aside from the "bad attitude" of the Objectivist movement, how is
the Objectivist PHILOSOPHY irrational and illiberal? These points are
subtle too, but a beginning would be:

#1. Objectivism's abstract PHILOSOPHY badly underestimates the
importance and malevolence of the phenomenon of religion. Rand called
Objectivists "intransigent atheists, not militant ones -- the enemy
is too unworthy." This is a gross error: no opponent is more worth
killing, or harder to kill, than god. Rand also confused and
conflated mythology and religion, calling both "mysticism" -- another
gross error. Mythology began BEFORE philosophy in around 3300 BC and
is relatively benign (as Joseph Campbell taught us in the '80s).
Religion began AFTER philosophy in around 200 AD and is completely
malignant.

#2. Objectivist MORALITY doesn't include idealism, courage, or
benevolence in its seven cardinal virtues. Nor does it have a place
for Greek "moderation in all things" and "know thyself". Nor can it
successfully integrate Benjamin Franklin's (and Junto founder's)
super-simplified ethos of "industry and frugality". All are
considerable lacunas.

#3. Objectivist POLITICS condemns "force and fraud" but NOT the
clearer, cleaner, fuller, more explicit "taxation and regulation of
economic and social behavior". Nor can it solve the tax problem.

#4. Objectivism ESTHETICS is a rather bland, robotic, unimaginative,
one-size-fits-all heroicism lacking certain amounts of innovation,
creativity, intelligence, perceptivity, realism, practicality,
subtlety, nuance, complexity, and sophistication.

#5. Objectivist SPIRITUALITY is virtually non-existent. No
Objectivist 'church' exists or is even on the horizon. This
abdication to religion is a huge tactical error collectively, just as
it starves the Objectivist soul individually.

Finally, Objectivism is somewhat irrational and illiberal in that
it's rather ahistorical: it doesn't see itself in the proper
historical context. Objectivism doesn't really know it's part in the
great Western liberal tradition. The philosophy of Objectivism is
illiberal in that it doesn't truly know it's merely a subsidiary part
of the culture of liberalism.