Objectivism vs Privatism

Posted by FlukeMan2 10 years, 2 months ago to History
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I've been watching these Biography of America videos for my history class. The latest one brought up the idea of Privatism. It sounds very much like Objectivism. I was hoping you all could help me draw the lines around (and between) the two more distinctly.

Here's what was said about Benjamin Franklin and privatism on page five of the transcrip.
http://www.learner.org/biographyofameric...

Like Paul Revere, Franklin moved from running a shop to engagement in public affairs. He launched the Pennsylvania Gazette, which became the most successful newspaper in the colonies. And for twenty-five years he published his Poor Richard's Almanack, the most widely read book, next to the Bible, in colonial America. In his Almanack, Franklin dispensed humorous advice on how to get rich, later collecting the best of Poor Richard under the title "The Way to Wealth."

This became a how-to-do guide for the ambitious. Franklin's Puritan father had preached to him the gospel of getting to heaven. The son preached the gospel of getting ahead. "The sleeping fox catches no poultry." "There is no gain without pain." And this is my favorite one. "It costs more to maintain one vice than to raise two children." For this, Franklin's been sometimes called sarcastically, "The Father of all the Yankees."

But behind the Yankee was the Puritan. Growing up in Boston, Franklin skipped church to practice his writing. Calvin's idea of predestination clashed with his self-improving bent. But he did internalize Puritanism's social values: its moral earnestness, its emphasis on hard work and diligence, its self-scrutinizing cast of mind.

What he could not accept was John Winthrop's idea of a fixed human hierarchy, the idea that God had ordained that some should be rich and others poor, and that all should be satisfied with their station in life. Franklin believed that it was impossible to keep self-reliant people down in expanding America. Or as Crevecouer wrote: "As soon as a European arrives in America, he begins to throw off his former servitude and starts acting independently." As one historian has written, "This was a society unlike any in the world, in which people placed a greater value on their status as independent individuals, beholden to no man."

In Philadelphia, Franklin was an advanced agent of an ideological revolution that had begun in his home city of Boston. This was a movement against government controls on money-making and toward greater individual freedom. Colonists still lived in a mercantile world, in which British government controlled most of their trade. But they were beginning to fashion a new idea of economic behavior.

Modern historians call this privatism: the belief that there should be little or no control on the search for wealth; and that if each person fairly pursues his self-interest, the community as a whole will benefit. Franklin believed in this because he saw it working in Philadelphia.

Artisans owned their own one-man shops and controlled the conditions of their work. They also watched over each other's property, and didn't charge ridiculously high prices for their scarce products, fearing other artisans, whose products they needed, would retaliate. That's the kind of self-interest Franklin applauded. These conditions produced urban order as well as prosperity, an order maintained in the absence of a police force and with comparatively little government.

This didn't mean that one had no obligations to the community. Without much government, citizens had to give more of themselves to the community. And Franklin did. He became, in his own words, a "doer of good."

First he organized a club for "mutual improvement." Then he led other members of the club in a flurry of civic activity. He established America's first circulating library, a fire insurance organization, a night watch, a city hospital, a city college, (the future University of Pennsylvania), and the American Philosophical Society, which still meets in Independence Hall.

"Nothing but money is sweeter than honey." Franklin wrote that. But for him, money was merely a means to an end. At age 42, he retired from business, a rich man, to devote himself to public causes and scientific experiments.

By the way, all this came from Biography of America, Episode 3: Growth and Empire/The Best Poor Man's Country closely after the 18 and a half minute mark.
http://www.learner.org/biographyofameric...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 2 months ago
    Yes, in _consequence_ very much of Benjamin Franklin's personal philosophy is agreeable to Objectivism. If our culture had kept to that, we would have been better these past 200 years. The fundamental difference is that Objectivism is founded explicitly on the metaphysics and epistemology of reality and reason. Franklin did not address those issues; and neither did anyone else until Rand. That is why the "privatist" morality and ethics were lost.

    Similarly, later on Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill attempted to justify individual rights from the utilitarian argument of "the greatest good for the greatest number." While capitalism does deliver that, the calculus of mass enjoyment cannot justify individual rights. Neither can it provide a guide to personal action. Franklin did focus on personal action. (See Benjamin Franklin's "The Way to Wealth" here:
    http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey...), but it was rule-of-thumb, not logically rigorous.

    If you read all 60+ pages of "Galt's Speech" you will see the outline of how Ayn Rand justified ethical conduct in society on the basis of personal happiness; and more to the point, she derived the pursuit of happiness from the need for reason as the means of understanding reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago
    That's amazing. I love that story. I love that this is part of our cultural mythology. (not mythology as in its being false, but just the stories we tell about what we value)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 10 years, 2 months ago
    For one thing, #2, Objectivism is an integrated system of ideas not isolated to the realm of political-economics. I assume privatism is. I don't know about the rest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 2 months ago
    I Must see that video. I learned more about Franklin in a few paragraphs than I had known before. He's usually portrayed as an older ladies man fooling around in France or as an elder statesman of little consequence. Thinking about all those inventions, writings, civic actions, and business acumen is almost like knowing about several different men. What an amazing man, and what a gift he was to America and the world.

    From what you have written, the only difference I can see is that A.R. carried it much further with greater detail and justifications.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 2 months ago
    Why did Ayn Rand develop Objectivism in the United States? Do any of us imagine that she could have flourished (or even survived) in Soviet Russia?

    I think that those historians who remark about 'privatism' ignore or scorn Objectivism. Perhaps they fault Rand for her deliberate rejection of Bentham's and Mill's Utilitarianism.

    America was, and still is, a beacon for those who favor unrepressed development of ideas. Rand chose to be an American, deliberately chose the land formed by Benjamin Franklin, Rev. George Whitefield, and the large number of thinkers behind the American Revolution. She chose the land of Edison, Bell and Carnegie.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 2 months ago
    Hello FlukeMan2,
    Franklin's world my not have been to Objectivist standards, but it is a world far removed from what we have now. It is a world I could live with.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 2 months ago
    Benjamin Franklin's privatism had a purely pragmatic basis. It works, therefore it's true. Franklin would, in Hank Rearden's place, have offered all the defenses Rearden says he could use, but will not:

    "I have accomplished more good for my fellow man than you could ever hope to accomplish," and

    "You, sirs, do not serve the public good, for you cannot serve anyone's good by means of human sacrifice."

    But Franklin included one idea incompatible with Objectivism: the notion of sharing all practical ideas in common. In sharp contrast, Thomas Edison scrupulously protected himself through the patent system and use the proceeds from one invention to finance research-and-development of others.

    John Galt, of course, does the ultimate in self-support of scientific discovery: as first to discover various scientific principles, he offers lectures to would-be inventors, who pay him for the effort he has recently made to shed light on new principles of nature.

    If Franklin lived today, he no doubt would have founded the Free Hardware Foundation (and I do not mean "amateur builder's tools"), to complement Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation. He also would have promulgated a General Public License for computer hardware.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago
      Am I to take it that "the notion of sharing all practical ideas in common" is installed in Objectivism? Is that to say that if you have a practical idea, then I have a right to that idea? If yes, does that mean a right to know it or a right to use it (if I come to know it)?

      How does all of this fit with John Galt's charging for the knowledge he shares?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 2 months ago
        No. The notion of sharing practical ideas in common, came from Franklin, not from Rand. Rand would have applauded Edison's business model. The John Galt model was the ultimate extension of Edison's model for remuneration for ideas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago
    While "privatism" isn't the same thing as either Objectivism or libertarianism, "privatism" is a good set of ethics for public behavior, consistent with both (and with most major religions), and if it becomes more popular, it will serve the interests of both Objectivists and libertarians. It would be a shame if either group passed up chances to promote it because they didn't invent it themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 2 months ago
    Temlakos' comment about Franklin vs. Edison describe the main difference between privatism and Objectivism. Privatism allows for altruism and would allow for http://www.hackaday.com instead of strictly enforcing intellectual property rights. This is also the main difference between modern libertarianism (which I reject) and traditional libertarianism (which I am OK with). I had to discuss HackaDay with my protege today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo