Tag: contradictory

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.9

Ayn Rand published two essays about monetary systems, one written by Alan Greenspan and one written by herself. They both cite events for which there is no objective evidence, which is a violation of Rand’s philosophy.

WHEREAS, Rand’s philosophy says, “… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…i; which means that mental concepts are true only if we saw examples of them in the real world…

AND Alan Greenspan asserts that “The existence of (money) is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value… as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible”ii…

BUT, there is no objective evidence for Greenspan’s assertions. The objective evidence is to the contrary. Most people have lived as part of an interdependent group, whether with a monetary system or not. Communities without money have had division of labor and operated non-monetary economic systems, such as communism or gift/obligation. They also remembered who shared what with who, and acted equitably. They made long-range plans and had systems of exchange within the community and with other communities,iii not necessarily using barter…

THEREFORE, Greenspan is in violation of Rand’s philosophy. Because she published Greenspan’s essay as appropriate for her system of thought, Rand contradicts herself.

WHEREAS, Rand’s philosophy says, “… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…iv; which means that mental concepts are true only if we saw examples of them in the real world…

AND Ayn Rand asserts that mediums of exchange and money grew out of barter systems. “… you discover you can trade with other farmers… , and you trade your products by direct barter… You can trade your grains for something that will keep longer, and which you can trade for food when you need it… but which commodity?… You devise a tool of exchange – money”v…

BUT, there is no objective evidence for Rand’s assertions regarding barter and monetary systems. There is no evidence or record of barter economies. There is no evidence of monetary systems arising from customs of barter. There is no record of barter practices which did not operate within a larger economic system along with complex financial instruments, such as creditvi. Rand may be repeating Aristotle’s speculationsvii…

THEREFORE, Rand’s statements are violations of her philosophy. Because she violated her own philosophy, Rand contradicts herself.

i The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

ii Pg 96, Gold and Economic Freedom, Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iii This paragraph is based on material in https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf by David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

iv The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,

v Rand pg 127 Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It. Signet, Penguin 1984

vi This paragraph is based on material in Debt the First 5000 years. Pg 21 and more, David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

vii Aristotle, Politics I.9.1257 paraphrased in Debt the First 5000 years. Pg 24, David Graeber, Melville House Publishing, 2011

Rand vs South America

Ayn Rand tells this storyi. She claims to know the protagonist. This is a paraphrased version of what she wrote.

  • A factory in South America was operating at 45% of capacity. An “American” college kid was hired to turn things around. The kid noticed the wages were very low and decided the workers didn’t have enough incentive. He suggested paying by the piece. The wise, old factory manager told him it wouldn’t work, but agreed to try.

  • At first, productivity skyrocketed. But at the end of week three, having made what used to be a months salary, the workers went home and took a week off. When they returned, nothing could keep them from taking a week off each month. So the plan was discontinued.

To Rand, this is an example of the South American’s “anti-conceptual mentality… a passive refusal to think abstractly”ii. Taking time for one’s own interests, instead of earning more money in a factory, is a sign of a mental defect.

The idea that a healthy life requires time with family and friends, time to reflect or pursue social activities; or that people find such things interesting, exciting or even demanding is rejected by her philosophy as a symptom of the “neurotic… desire to escape from reality”iii which leads people to participate in “family picnics, ladies’ tea parties or “coffee klatches”, charity bazaars, vegetative kinds of vacation- all of them times of quiet boredom for all concerned, in which the boredom is the value” allowing them to avoid the “the new, the exciting, the unfamiliar” and the demands of “discrimination, judgement, awareness”iv.

Rand’s philosophy holds that “productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life”v. People should go to work because being productive is a goal in and of itself; productive meaning in the marketplace. It is not considered that the employees might now have the time for the productive activities of their own lives.

Rand sums it all up with the decision to stop the plan, implying it is a rational decision. The facts in the story indicate otherwise. The factory was operating at about half capacity, so the goal was to double the rate of production. Since the employer wanted to keep the new plan, the goal must have been achieved; which means an additional 50% more units were produced for the same amount of wages, even with a weeks worth of capacity still to be utilized. More employees could have been hired for the off week with the same high productivity plan. But, apparently the idea of people with time for themselves was so offensive; the factory went back to the old, less profitable system. The employer would rather make less money.

That the story doesn’t make sense, makes it all the more an expression of emotional reality, like a fairy tale or stories from myth or religion. The fabled employees’ sins were to reject her morality’s rewards and demands- the reward of a bigger paycheck and the demand of servitude. When the South Americans chose personal time off, they chose to be immoral. The immoral behavior was both halted and punished by taking away the increased wage.

Rand’s morality tale is well understood by workers in the US. “In a new survey conducted over the first few days of 2015: nearly 42 percent of Americans said they didn’t take a single vacation day during 2014…”vi

One survey found 40% will not take all the vacation days due to themvii for fear of job related consequences. These concerns are not all self imposed, “nearly a fifth of all managers…, said they considered employees who took all of their leave to be less dedicated.”viii Vacationing workers try to compensate; according to one survey, “three in five (61 percent) employees who have taken vacation/paid time off admit working at least some while on vacation.”ix

Fear is not the only reason for refusing time off. Much as in Rand’s fable, economic pressure plays a part. “Many full-time employed Americans get at least ten vacation days, and our survey shows only 13 percent of adult Americans could afford to actually take that many vacation days for the year.”x

Another reason is that Rand’s morality is shared by many people in the US. One study “…found that Americans have a complicated view of taking time off, often thinking of it as a guilty pleasure rather than a worker’s right.”xi Voters in Europe secured 20 to 30 days paid vacation by law, US voters have approved zero legally required vacationsxii. US citizens criticize political leaders for days off, to the point Barack Obama ran on a promise he would not take vacations.xiii Since his election, his vacation habits have been a contentious subject in the media.

i     The Missing Link, pg 37, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, 1984

ii      ibid

iii    The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 64, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iv     The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 65, Signet, New American Library, 1964

v      Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness, pg 25, Signet, New American Library, 1964

Alan Greenspan 1.4 – Contradictory

In “Gold and Economic Freedom”,  Alan Greenspani wishes to show that “… under the gold standard , a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth”. However, Alan Greenspan’s examples of unregulated banking based on gold are contradictory.

Greenspan starts with banks generating money to make loans: “A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy”.

When the economy is slow, “… when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off”; the banks: “curtail new lending,…usually by charging higher interest rates.”

When the economy is good, “when banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly”. The loans have lower interest, “and bank credit continues to be generally available.”

His next paragraph creates contradiction. It presents the situation where different countries have the gold standard in common, and “there are no restraints… on the movement of capital”.

If a country has a liberal credit market, “interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries” and “immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the easy credit country… tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates.”

As a result, “the economies of the different countries act as one… Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries”.

Greenspan’s contradictions are:

  1. Banks cannot act according to the production requirements of their economy, as in his first example ; but must act according to the interest rates of the banks in his second example, in other gold standard economies.
  2. The banks in his first example could never have started or participated in their expansion with low interest, because the gold deposits would have fled to the countries in the second example.
  3. If the interest in all the countries started at parity; when the banks of the first example started charging higher interest, the gold would leave other countries and cause those economies to contract. To prevent loss of their gold deposits, the banks of the other countries would also raise their interest rates – causing their economies to contract. Either way, all the countries must contract their economies whenever one country raises interest rates.
  4. Wherever business starts to get better, banks cannot return to the previous low interest rates or they will lose their deposits to other banks. Economic growth will stop as soon as it starts.

 Greenspan fails to show how expansion or growth can begin. His first example of the creation of money starts with the economy already in full swing. When Greenspan’s gold standard economy contracts, the banks have no means to counter that. Instead, the banks wait for businesses to solve the problem, “and require… existing borrowers to improve profitability” without funds. They also “.. restrict the financing of new ventures…”. Both Greenspan’s examples of the individual bank and the multinational situation end with high interest rates and economic contraction.

In Greenspan’s ideal system, there is incentive to set high interest rates. Once high interest rates are in place, there is no way to lower them. Once in a contraction, Greenspan’s gold standard banks do not have the tools to begin expansion. They only have tools to slow the economy down. The contraction must continue. The ratchet only works in one direction.

Here is Greenspan’s statements in full:

“When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus under the gold standard , a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.

When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-sol long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money” country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.”

iGold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Pg 98, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

Rand contradicts herself 1.9

Rand contradicts and violates her own philosophy of epistemology.

Rand claims “Modern Philosophers” are attacking her ideas with their “…favorite category (and strawman)… “The Borderline Case.”.. Modern Philosophers’ favorite examples of this “problem” are expressed by such questions as:… “If you had never seen any swans but white ones, and then discovered a black one, by what criteria would you decide whether to classify it as a “swan”, or to give it a different name and coin a new concept?”…”

First, Leonard Piekoff provides the guidelines of Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology:

“Since a word is a symbol for a concept, it has no meaning apart from the content of the concept. And since a concept is an integration of units, it has no meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units which it integrates, including all the characteristics of those units.” (italics in original)

“Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of those units. There is no basis whatsoever- neither metaphysical nor epistemologically, neither in the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness- for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning.”

“Metaphysically, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity’s identity.”

“Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities.i”

Mr. Piekoff emphatically tells us. A concept such as “swan” is the whole package. You can’t just pick out one thing about the swan and say it doesn’t count. The all-black bird is a different thing from the all-white bird and requires a name of it’s own, according to Objectivism.

Now for Ayn Rand’s response to the “strawman” of the Black Swan:

“In the case of black swans, it is objectively mandatory to classify them as “swans,” because virtually all their characteristics are similar to the characteristics of a white swan and the difference in color is of no cognitive significance.”

Rand says the answer is “objectively mandatory”, but she ignores her own philosophy that a word sums up the entirety of the concept’s observed characteristics. She arbitrarily decides to disregard a characteristic, an act Peikoff describes as “without basis in metaphysics, epistemology, the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness”. The statement that the difference in color is of no cognitive significance ignores the thousands years history of citing the swan’s white color as it’s most important featureii, the Conceptual Common Denominator, to use Rand’s termiii.

Rand also ignores historical facts, because the issue of the Black Swan is not a strawman. Black Swans presented an actual “problem” for scientists. In 1697, Europeans first encountered a Black Swan in Australia. Scientists decided to coin a new concept and give the bird it’s own monotypic genus “Chenopis” instead of classifying it in the genus “Cygnus”. In other words, not a swan. Apparently, the color had cognitive significance for those scientists. For 90 years this opinion held, until John Latham determined that it was indeed a swan and it’s genus was changed.iv The scientific deliberation shows that Rand’s facile pronouncements come from ignorance.

Rand contradicts and violates the criteria of her own philosophy for categorizing observations. Rand falsely accuses “Modern Philosophers” of creating a strawman. Rand makes ignorant pronouncements about a subject that took scientists 90 years to decide.

i Pg. 133 Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Piekoff , Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

iii Pg 18 Intro to Objectivist Epistemology

iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

Rand contradicts herself 1.8

Ayn Rand’s philosophy proves her concept of Capitalism is false and invalid.

According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, a true concept must be observed before it is thought. If there is not an example in the real world, the mental concept is false and invalid.

“…concepts represent classifications of observed referents…”i

”There are… invalid concepts, i.e. … without referents…”ii

“Truth is a product of … identification… of the facts of reality”iii

“All truth is a product of logical identification of the facts of experienceiv

According to Ayn Rand, Capitalism is an “unknown ideal”v. A Capitalist economic system has “never yet existed, not even in America”vi.

If concepts must be observed and Capitalism has never been observed, then Capitalism is not a concept.

If truth is real and Capitalism has never existed, then Capitalism is not true.

If truth must be experienced and Capitalism is unknown, then Capitalism is not true.

If concepts without referents are invalid and Capitalism does not have a referent, then Capitalism is an invalid concept.

Therefore, Ayn Rand’s philosophy proves Ayn Rand’s concept of Capitalism is false and invalid.

Sources:

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition (paperback) 1979 Library of Congress # 78-71454

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New American Library, Signet edition (paperback) 1967 Library of Congress # 66-26772

i Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 62

ii Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 65

iii Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, pg 63

iv Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic-Synthethic Dichotomy pg 158

v Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

vi Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Objectivist Ethics, pg 33

Rand contradicts herself 1.7 (Rand vs Science 1.8)

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents falsification with an inconsistent argument.

Falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects the Positivist process of falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Yet, on Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”.

The argument against falsification is inconsistent with her general point. If she knows any concept then she knows what is the contrary; just as the Positivist knows what evidence will contradict a theory’s prediction. The argument is inconsistent with her example of the table, where non-tables don’t have to be specifically identified in impossible circumstances.

Rand’s argument is inconsistent. Rand contradicts herself.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand contradicts herself 1.6 (Rand vs Science 1.5)

By disagreeing with Positivist philosophy, Rand’s philosophy disagrees with itself.

Rand’s logical process identifies statements as being true or false by first observing the world around us, then identifying what we observe as being either contradictory or non-contradictory to the statement.

On Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts we observe – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”. And on Pg 152, “In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) Falsified is the same as contradicted. The process of observation, evaluation and classification are the same for both Positivist and Objectivist.

But Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it an “inversion” and a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge.”

If Positivist falsification by observation is incorrect, then Rand’s observation of contradiction must be incorrect.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand contradicts herself 1.5

Ayn Rand’s philosophy contradicts her economic theory.

Ayn Rand asserts that capitalism has never existed.i Economic systems in her history have all been “statist” (for the state).ii She calls some of these statist economies “mixed” because capital investment played a part:

  • “Thus what existed in practice in the nineteenth century was not pure capitalism but variously mixed economies… … it was the statist element of the mixtures that wrecked them; it was the free capitalist element that took the blameiii
  • “It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom however was dominantiv…
  • when the repressive element of England’s mixed economy grew…”v

Rand is dividing the observed characteristics of an economic system into two groups. She claims one group of characteristics to be the separate concept of “capitalism”; excluding the other characteristics.

However, her philosophy says not to do that : “Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever… … for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning”vi.

She violates her own philosophy.

iCapitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiThe Roots of War, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

iiiWhat is Capitalism? Pg 31, Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

ivThe Roots of War pg 38. Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

vThe Roots of War pg 39 Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Signet, New American Library 1967

viThe Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 133, Leonard Piekoff, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand contradicts herself 1.4

Ayn Rand’s philosophy invalidates her concept of capitalism.

On the one hand, according to Rand’s philosophy, “There are invalid concepts, i.e. words… without referents…”[1] In Rand’s philosophy, a word without a referent is a word without a real world example.

On the other hand, according to Rand’s economic history, capitalism has “never yet existed”[2]. There is no real world example of capitalism according to Rand.

Capitalism has no referent, therefore it is an invalid concept according to Rand’s philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.[3]”

Therefore, all of Rand’s propositions and processes of thought regarding capitalism are invalidated by her own philosophy.

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

[2] The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Also Atlas Shrugged.

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 65

Rand contradicts herself 1.3

Rand’s concept of capitalism is overly broad according to her philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary integration of concepts into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences[1]”

She gives the example of running. Running is a characteristic. Running is not an entity in and of itself. People run. In her philosophy, classifying running people, running clocks and running stockings together as “running things” is an error because it makes the action of running the “higher order concept” over the entities with that characteristic .[2]

According to her, the consequence of this error is “the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data – which means: the regression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man.”[3]

A business structure of capital investment is an activity characteristic of people in just the way running is. It is one of many very different activities in an economic system, which is one system among many in a society of very different people.

Rand proposes the capitalist attribute to be the entire economic system. By obliterating essential differences, she imagines a capitalist legal system, a capitalist medical system and a new entity, the capitalist state[4]; not merely operating on capitalist principles, but existing only as a function of capitalism. The state would be an attribute of the capitalist ideal.

Rand’s proposal is that the concept of capitalism is the higher order concept above the entities which have that characteristic. That is a violation of her philosophy.

 

[1] Page 95 the cognitive role of concepts

[2] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.2

Ayn Rand’s concept of capitalism violates the rules of her philosophy.

In Rand’s philosophy, mental concepts must be observed in the real world. What we observe are the characteristics of the concept, what she calls an “existent”. We can’t take part of what we see and make the part into a new concept:

“Nor can the concept of an existent mean its characteristics (some or all) apart from the existent which possesses them. A characteristic is an aspect of an existent. It is not a disembodied Platonic universal[1]…”

Rand says that her concept of capitalism has never existed in the real world[2]. Rand says her concept of capitalism is an “Unknown Ideal”[3], which is a term referring to a disembodied Platonic universal. She says her concept of capitalism is based on elements of other economic systems which have existed[4]; which means she parted characteristics from real things to create her ideal.

Therefore she is in violation of her philosophy.

 

 

 

[1] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy pg 143

[2] The Virtue of Selfishness:  The Objectivist Ethics pg 33.

[3] Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness: The Objectivist Ethics pg 33. Capitalism: The unknown ideal: The Roots of War pg. 39

Ayn Rand contradicts herself 1.1b

Rand’s philosophy contradicts her economics.

According to Ayn Rand’s economic theory, capitalism is an “unknown ideal”i which has “never yet existedii”. According to her philosophy, that means her concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Rand’s philosophy has strict rules about what is true. Here are some quotes from her philosophy. She has a unique vocabulary. The word “existent” means “a real thing”. The phrase “observed existents” means “the real things you saw”. Quote:

“Truth is the identification of a fact of reality.iii

“… truth vs. falsehood … By what method is truth discovered and validated? … The content of the concept … the characteristics of the existents … must be discovered and validated by observation.iv

“… concepts represent classifications of observed existents…v­

“Concepts represent classifications of the known facts of reality.vi”

Logically, according to her premises; if capitalism has never existed, then capitalism is not a fact of reality and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true. If capitalism is unknown, then capitalism cannot be recognized, identified, classified or validated and Rand’s concept of capitalism cannot be true.

Therefore, Rand’s concept of capitalism is false according to the criteria of her philosophy.

iCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Title

iiThe Objectivist Ethics, Pg. 33

iiiIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Pg.158

ivIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 136

vIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy, Pg 131

viIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Definitions, Pg 62