Reason Foundation Co-Founder Bob Poole on Ayn Rand

Robert W. Poole Jr. was one of the founders of Reason Enterprises, which began publishing Reason with its January 1971 issue (the magazine had started in 1968, under the direction of Lanny Friedlander).
He co-founded the nonprofit Reason Foundation in 1978 with Manny Klausner and Tibor Machan and has held many titles with the magazine, including editor, managing editor, executive editor, editor-in-chief, and publisher. He remains on the board of the Reason Foundation today and is the Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy.
"Rand really inspired a lot of people who otherwise might have become conservatives, like me," says Poole. "If you go back and look at surveys that were done of libertarians in the 1960s, '70s, and even the '80s, and asked what single book or thought leader most inspired you to become a libertarian, it was always Rand by a large large majority-always a plurality and usually a majority."
Approximately six minutes. Interview by Michael C. Moynihan, camera by Dan Hayes, and editing by Hawk Jensen.
This is part of the Reason.tv series Radicals For Capitalism: Celebrating the Ideas of Ayn Rand.
Watch the first part of the series, Rand-O-Rama: The Long Shelf Life of Ayn Rand at • Rand-O-Rama: The Long ...
Watch a promo trailer for the series at • Rand-O-Rama: The Long ...
Go to reason.tv for more information and downloadable versions of all videos.

[@Blaseboniface]

I once met with Robert Poole Jr. when he visited Hawaii during my stint as Chairman of the Libertarian Party in Hi for 9 years. I found him to be a man of integrity and reason, but after seeing Katherine Mangu-Ward's ridiculous comments on Ron Paul, I believe Jordan Page's lyrics "The enemies of Freedom are cleverly disguised," now applies - it makes me sad to say - to Reason Magazine.

[@atchisrj1]

Thomas Jefferson was my influence to becoming Libertarian. Ayn Rand came later.

[@CosmosPrivateer]

What will we do when there are no jobs? What will we do in 50 years when technology does our work? We have been working towards not working for many years and didn't even know it. We are slaves to the system now and will soon be free of it. Being born on this planet and free to enjoy our stay is FREEDOM. We are almost there and didn't plan for it.

[@libertarianjury]

I love this guy! He is 100% right, and I am going to renew my subscription this instant for myself and my family members! You should all do the same! Bravo!

[@captaindiesalot]

Rebuild the Case for the Constitution, and the rest will fall into place.

[@blurglide]

I wanted to clarify something. When I said whatever someone can produce in their time is theirs, I mean the value added they bring- not the materiels they're working on. e.g. someone building cars doesn't own the car; they own the value they add to it, and choose to sell that value to the company that owns the facilities, materiels, distribution network, etc. Both parties come out ahead compared to individuals trying to run entire car companies, assembly to sales floor.

[@Skyler827]

While somewhat correct, I think a simpler way of putting it is there is no such thing as tyranny of competitors and always a tyranny of the Monopoly. Companies technically can be just as corrupt as the government in theory, but the reason they usually aren't is because of competition. Government is always tyrannical because of its monopoly status.

[@MirageScience]

I'm not an objectivist but TY Ayn Rand. ANARCHY

[@Nonoyawns]

Ron Paul inspired me to become a libertarian!

[@OlderAnimal]

I'm a technocratic socialist. I don't associate myself with anarchism. I like the way most of it sounds just not sure what it *is*. "But you could easily say that, if socialism was coming about, that it required the same slaughter." You really could. And that sucks. This is happening in Venezuela and it's terrible. I'm all for expropriation of abandoned factories and absent land ownership. But murder should avoided at all costs.

[@OlderAnimal]

Any system that would resort to enslaving human beings in pursuit of profit is absolutely abominable. A system based on property is a system based on serfdom. Period.

[@OlderAnimal]

By materials, I mean the subjects of labor. Nickel isn't a product of labor. It's a subject of labor. If you claim ownership over more nickel than you are currently extracting, you're claiming ownership of a subject of labor (capitalism), not ownership of the production of your own labor (socialism).

[@Silvsilvchan]

"Appearing not to understand, empathize with or be sensitive to others' feelings" Oh dear. Do I detect a hint of hypocrisy here?

[@blurglide]

Put another way, imagine your ENTIRE class gets the same grade- the average of all students in the class. If you bust your ass on a test and get an A+, and everyone else gets a D, you just busted your ass for a D+, and everyone else was able to get a D+ for D effort. If that happens, how much effort will you put into preparing for the next test? I've been to Nepal, Cambodia, Laos, & have seen this mentality in action, up close. Travel will make you appreciate capitalism (if you're rational)

[@blurglide]

Just have a sec. Here's the rub. Capitalist invest their money in the industries most likely to be profitable. Without that investment, there are few jobs and few in-demand goods. They're taking a great risk, & deserve to get paid. Without the investor, the worker has no job. Without the worker, the investor has no way to implement his plan. BOTH parties come out ahead. Many countries have tried to replace the investor with the gov, but it has always resulted in poor resource allocation.

[@blurglide]

Labor is only valuable when it is performed in the production of goods and services most in demand. There, the most people will find benefit, and you the laborer will be most greatly compensated. Only the market forces have been effective in putting values and driving workers to their most effective methods of labor and contribution to EVERYONE'S benefit. Every centrally planned system has failed. When an exchange happens, both parties gain something they want more for something wanted less

[@MannyMarvel]

@NickDiPerna very true indeed, here in the states the problem i believe we face is the altruistic entitlement mentality that if one looses their employment state benefits are expected. Ayn Rand stated in an old interview that these types of welfare states are unsustainable and eventually fail. The real problem is the thought process of the herd not the herder that confines them.

[@kev3d]

That is categorically false, as I have worked in India in 6 separate cities. The difference between the "self reliant" days of Post Colonial India and today are staggering. Yes, tremendous poverty still exists, partially from bad governing, partially from cultural stigmas. They need more capitalism, not less. Hence why comparatively free Bangalore, not communist controlled Calcutta is a technological Mecca and is vastly better than most other Indian Cities.

[@kev3d]

You make it sound like the market ought to be some kind of wish-granting engine; it isn't. All markets regardless of how they are managed must eventually yield to practicality. Your Hydrogen fuel economy might be YOUR dream, but not everyone elses. But that aside, if socialized planning worked, we should expect the most controlled economies to innovate the most; but they don't. The freest markets produce the greatest and most widely available Technology.

[@kev3d]

Pardon, did you say Russia had "less" to work with? The Soviet Union had every natural and human resource any nation could ever want. Besides that, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong with virtually no natural resources flourish while resource rich nations like Mexico, D.R. Congo, India and so on are largely impoverished? Prosperity has more to do with the freedoms afforded to common people, not central planning and not socializing institutions.

[@Silvsilvchan]

The question here is how did he come into possession of that lake? Did he inherit it? Did he buy it? If he bought it did he do so with money he came by through inheritance? Or through his own hard work and labor, perhaps utilizing that lake? Lastly, what happens when fisherman (labourers) have their catches from that lake bought by a capitalist? Are they or are they not being rewarded for their labour by that capitalist?

[@Silvsilvchan]

If I do not own property... then I don't own my home? The land it is built upon? By this do I forfeit my right to privacy? Since I do not own my home other people may intrude in it as they wish and my trying to bar them from doing so would be a violation of their rights? Just some curiosities. If I spend a year growing an nurturing an apple tree, weeding and killing pests, other people who did none of the work in caring for it can simply walk up and take an apple? How am I not a slave there?

[@Silvsilvchan]

This isn't at all a bad point and is an example of something that fuels my disdain of corporatism. But think of it this way. In a capitalist system if some one else had seen Tesla's idea and went "That's awesome. I'll help you with that" there would have been nothing Morgan or any other Robber Baron could have done about it. But perhaps in a society where government colludes with corporations... some one might also step in and stop that? You mention the USSR in another comment;

[@Silvsilvchan]

People do exchange labor, to an extent. In of itself exchanging a service for another service is a capitalist thing... you are trading one good (goods not necessarily being properties) for another. Perhaps asking "Are you Lenin or Kaplan" wasn't the right way to pose my question. Are you a Marx (Lenin) or a Bakunin (Kaplan)? You sound like the later. Though I think part of the problem here is that some of us have different definitions of what capitalism is. It isn't greed for me.

[@OlderAnimal]

"...they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand." This is incorrect. They cannot stay in business if consumers stop paying them. What consumers will pay for is not a reflection of what consumers *demand*. Consumers would love to drive a ultra-capacitor powered vehicle in a hydrogen fuel economy. Demand. The technology exists. Supply. Production? Completely contingent on a pre-existing profit margin.

[@OlderAnimal]

Agreed. Both governments commanded the economy to produce a desired result. Whether it was the US or Russia, BOTH managed to innovate. The US has more domestic resources than Russia. That's why Russia's absent in the global economy. And it's the only reason Stalin used militarized government to funnel capital right back to government. We're not really discussing the parameters for innovation right Russia's command economy just had less to work with.

[@kev3d]

And they are far less nefarious than you believe. Companies, like people, make good and bad choices, but over all, they cannot keep in business if they do not provide what consumers demand. Yes, some industries and unions bribe politicians for special protection, but this is all the more reason to have limited government and the maximum empowerment possible left to the individuals. The government should be in the business of impartial contract enforcement, little else.

[@kev3d]

Sure, they did. But almost every one of them was a technological cul-de-sac. That is precisely the point. Why, if it was a military App, did the Net Flourish creating millions of jobs, when the USSR's military apps wither and die? The Soviets Pioneered the satellite yet Private comm Sats far out perform anything the soviets did. Reagan's GPS was a good Military App, but it was GREAT when ordinary electronic companies started making GPS navigators.

[@kev3d]

You are dealing in hypotheticals. Im talking about practical cases. In the cases where diseases have been cured or eliminated (many have) there is the dividend of having a larger labor pool. In every case it only strengthened the economy, and allowed those scientific resources to be deployed elsewhere. Effective Companies do not simply shrug their shoulders and say "well that problem's solved, guess we are all unemployed now" They continue to make better or more effective cures for profit.

[@kev3d]

Yes, back then only the government had the resources to spend on building such things, but the point is A new era in business, information and technology occurred AFTER the free market got a hold of them. So what if need produces change? By what engine can those changes be developed and delivered? Who decides what is needed? Some top down politburo? Or individuals? In every practical case, consumer demand, not government decree advances technology and elevates the standard of living.

[@OlderAnimal]

2. There's an enormous demand for cancer treatment. And yes, the cancer industry is still booming. But this is due to the frequency of cancer, not the frequency of cures. I'm not insinuating that the only reason cancer isn't completely eliminated is because of the lack of profit return. Just that a complete cure will have an adverse effect on the industry. You still insist otherwise.

[@kev3d]

Which is why we remember Tesla for his science, not his economics. Same for Einstein. The Internet and Computer were little more than intellectual curiosities until left to the free market. As for "profit losing" cancer cures or sustainable energy (whatever that means). Lots of cancers have cures developed largely by a profit motive. Im sure the USSR had people just as caring, but where were the vast majority of scientific discoveries made? Let alone freedom of choice.

[@OlderAnimal]

I'm right about Tesla. He discovered alternating current, an enormous leap in electronic engineering. His business tact was lacking, because he lacked profit motivation. He also designed the The Wardenclyffe Tower. This was partly financed by JP Morgan: "When Morgan wanted to know 'Where can I put the meter?' Tesla had no answer. Tesla's vision of free power did not agree with Morgan's worldview" Plenty of solutions result in a loss of profit. Like sustainable energy or a cure for cancer.

[@kev3d]

As far as innovation, you are wrong. Tesla, brilliant though he was, was a terrible businessman and tore up his contract with Westinghouse in sweet, but foolhardy solidarity. Edison, (who employed Tesla at one point) had a profit motive and employed thousands of people. And if I am a brilliant biochemist, and I own stock in the Company, its in my best interest to develop the best drug their is. Ownership is not everything, but its a hell of a motivator.

[@kev3d]

There are exceptions to every rule, and of course there are those who make very poor business decisions. But most of the time, and by far, the best kept properties are privately owned, where as "government housing" is synonymous with poor maintenance and crime. Plenty of people might clean a beach they don't own...but people are far less likely to litter their own beach. The best maintained roads in Florida, for example, are the ones on Disney property.

[@OlderAnimal]

In terms of maintenance over the subjects of labor, you've conflated ownership with stewardship. Plenty of dilapidated buildings still have owners waiting to turn a profit out of them. Plenty of people clean beaches they don't own. In terms of innovation or motivation, needs necessitate change. I don't have to own a drug manufacturing company to innovate a drug therapy. And guys like Einstein and Tesla lacked profit motivation almost completely.

[@kev3d]

Ownership is a motivator for labor and occasionally, innovation. If I own a copper mine, I am motivated to use my labor to extract copper and sell it or sell the mine. Owning, say, a garden, motivates the production of lawn mowers, pots, shears, sprinklers etc. as well as engages a gardener in exchanged for money, food or pleasure. Without ownership there is no incentive to clean, improve, employ, buy or sell. When no one owns something, it is ignored, abused or left to rot.

[@OlderAnimal]

"Rather than insult my ignorance"...lol. Yeah. Thanxabunch blurgy. You could try listening to Gary Hamburg's "The Rise and Fall of Soviet Communism". For a capitalist, he offers a pretty objective assessment of communism under Lenin. Learn more about anarcho-socialism in Spain after the civil war. The Paris Commune. But most of all, understand the difference between the subjects of labor and the production of labor.

[@OlderAnimal]

Working for a boss or starving isn't a real choice. It's an ultimatum. If you lived in a socialist country and your only alternative to that way of life was leaving it, you wouldn't be satisfied with those circumstances would you? You mentioned that you believe in "keeping what you worked for". I honor labor. Just not the ownership of the subjects of labor. I don't see ownership as a product of labor. Conservation of mass, etc.

[@OlderAnimal]

I can't really see myself as either. I guess I'd just like to see a pure demand and supply economy with cognitive and physical labor representing bargaining power. An economy that reflects people exchaning labor, not property. If I design a bridge and sell the idea to workers in exchange for goods or services, my level of bargaining power continges on how much they need my service, not my property. If I just own the materials needed to build the bridge that's more like a ransom.

[@Silvsilvchan]

I have to disagree. I don't like Rand. I don't dislike her either. I just have some minor issues with the philosophy of objectivism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Here Rand and I agree completely. Objectivism is a political and personal philosophy that I agree with on some points and dramatically disagree with on others. Though I do respect Rand. She herself has been critical of things she believed in or other followers there of. She'd want me to be critical of her too, I think.

[@Silvsilvchan]

Hrm. I have to ask though, what do you propose as an alternative to capitalism? Clearly you don't want to be a 'wage slave' (the term you are looking for) to a few privileged suits. Nor do I want to be the slave of some expansive state, which often sides with those few privileged suits (and likewise will ultimately seek out only its own betterment or profit, whatever benefits the state over whatever benefits the individual). I guess what I am asking is, "Are you Lenin or are you Kaplan?"

[@Joemantler]

You're close. Anyone can claim anything as long as they have the force to enforce it. African Gov'ts claim ownership of elephants, but poachers are still killing them. Now, in a society, we use thought and will often recognize and help enforce others claims to something. Sadly, the thoughts people use are not always rational or moral thoughts, and we wind up with people 'claiming' the labor of others. That's what Socialism is all about.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

How can you just claim a mine? In my opinion, anyone can claim anything they want, they just have to have the consent of others, that is, until they actually produce something of value, i.e. inject their labor into the land so that what comes of that land could not have existed without that person's labor. Just claiming a copper mine, though, that sounds wrong to me, like claiming a stream or tree. How else are you going to identify ownership?

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better. "Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets." Sounds like anarchy to me. And no taxes? What could be better. What do you think about it? I do think ownership is productive, though. Just a sound bite answer (500 char limit): "Tragedy of the commons."

[@natdavi]

owning shoes doesn't win a marathon. point is owning a copper mine doesn't oblige one to mine the copper. the point of ownership is that ppl keep the fruits of their labor. if I choose not to extract copper from my own mine then I'll get nothing. If you force me to do it so you can have copper for your industrial concers you've made me a slave. ownership and capitalism are more about human rights than industrial production. capitalist economies are more productive b/c they put people first.

[@OlderAnimal]

War. Dispossession. Peace. And now profit. In 20 years socialists in Mogadishu will probably be having the same conversation about who owns property, who actually does the work, and who profits in the end. All the violence aside, ownership isn't productive. Only matter, energy, and ideas provide us with what we have. Owning a copper deposit doesn't extract it for industrial use. What are your thoughts on this?

[@OlderAnimal]

Add a little foreign investment to production: "Somalia implemented a foreign investment law last year which is another step in the government's efforts to encourage private sector development. If the new law is adhered to, an investor could reap substantial profits, reports the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu. Investment opportunities exist in oil exploration, agriculture, livestock and fisheries joint ventures, shipping, tourism, and light manufacturing." - Business America

[@OlderAnimal]

Really? I'll try to dumb it down for ya: Mogadishu. A few civil wars in the early 90's and now all surviving warlords are enjoying the fruits of other people's labor. Accumulation via dispossession. "Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalias service sector has managed to survive and grow Mogadishus main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security." - CIA Factbook

[@OlderAnimal]

Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on capital. How this capital is acquired is often of little to no concern and the labor it's subjected to is devalued at a constant. Any system that divides production from it's producer will promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of this is typically within the realm of egoist rationale and gets worse as the consolidation of resources grows. Making life for the majority of living people...rather sucky.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

Capitalism, at it's core, is a system based on owning yourself and, by extension, the property and labor of yourself. Any philosophy which does not recognize the fact of self-ownership and absolute property rights must promote the subjugation of people to some degree. The denial of self-ownership is typically within the realm of government, and gets worse as government grows, further limiting people's liberties.

[@OlderAnimal]

1. In the beginning both the internet and the computer in the US ( Semi Automatic Ground Environment and the Harvard Mark I) were outfitted for military purposes only. This doesn't mean war is integral to innovation. Needs necessitate change. If the need is present and the resources are available, we will innovate. JP Morgan and Wardenclyffe tower. Rember?

[@OlderAnimal]

Not all socialist/communist schemes use central planning. Does participation in buiilding public policy translate into central planning for you? As far as labor is concerned I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't accept private ownership of the subjects of labor as a form of production. Ownership is not productive. Labor is. Any thoughts on Ricardian rent theory?

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

Just from your quotes, I see it withering away rather than increasing. When violence goes down and trade goes back up, that's when I see freedom increasing. We can't say that the violence was preferable to no violence, but the lessening violence is absolutely preferable to continuing or increasing violence.

[@OlderAnimal]

"As terrible as what people are going through in Somalia, it sounds like things are actually getting better." For who? At what cost? Things might be getting better in Iraq. Does that justify a foreign country absorbing 90% of it's oil profits through violence? Thousands killed in the process. I'm positive you don't support that. You don't see the same tyranny in Somalia?

[@Silvsilvchan]

Capitalism has two meanings. Profit driven markets, and freedom. I don't particularly care much for the former, but the later is what drives me towards capitalism. Most capitalist enslavement occurs by non-capitalist methods. The instant the government becomes involved in the market, on any level, it ceases to be capitalism. I hate large international conglomerates.

[@OlderAnimal]

I stay out of the state/anti-state debate and try to focus on labor, the subjects of labor, and the levels of participation in building public policy. When a capitalist defines his ownership of a fresh water lake as "the fruits of his labor", you've got enough on your plate as it is.

[@OlderAnimal]

Also, laborers in countries like India continue to suffer greatly due to dispossession via capitalist expansion. Before capitalism, India experienced famines every 125 years. After capitalism, periods of starvation every 3-4 years.

[@trehansen]

I wouldn't bother, trying to describe anarcho-socialism, libertarian-socialism, or anarcho-syndicalism to a Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboy isn't worth your time. Believe me I have tried. Any concept of anarchism escapes them completely.

[@OlderAnimal]

Serfdom is based on an impoverished majority being infinitely indebted to an opulent minority. Wealth is only a result of what you own, not what you've done. How do you see capitalism as a rejection of this?

[@MrMDESTINY]

I am reading these comments and I just dont get it. Freedom is a natural law and once you start to ignore it perversion starts to permeate any system. A bunch of mumbo jumbo below without meaningful thread!

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

"Any system that divides production from it's producer will promote the subjugation of people to some degree." This never made any sense to me (when you or anyone else says it). Can you tell me what you mean by it?

[@Silvsilvchan]

I have to work for a boss? Who says? The beauty of capitalism is that I can be self employed. In a serfdom or a socialist system I have a boss or I starve, that boss is the nobility or the state.

[@OlderAnimal]

I agree. There will always be problems to solve. But sometimes the best solutions have less profit return. And industries like healthcare and energy appear to be far less scrupulous than you describe.

[@Silvsilvchan]

In a serfdom the serfs are barely above slaves. They are attached to property, and have few rights to what little property they are 'allowed' to own. In a capitalist system they have the same property rights. If they don't it isn't a capitalist system, though it certainly can masquerade as one. Rand I think was pretty disdainful of those who were born into wealth but were untalented and/or lazy. She advocated that the hardest and most talented workers should be rewarded with capita.

[@OlderAnimal]

3. The USSR had plenty of innovations in biology, chemistry, and spacecraft propulsion. But almost all of it's very limited resources were relegated to military use.

[@Silvsilvchan]

I wouldn't even say that was limited government. You can see dramatic over reachings of the state as early as John Adam's administration.

[@OlderAnimal]

Guys like Newton, Tesla, and Einstein were a huge influence on me. All Rand did was try to turn the english language into diarrhea.

[@blurglide]

TruthDevours: I understand your sentiment. I once had the same feelings. However, I now understand it's because I didn't understand what capitalism actually was. Rather than just insult your ignorance, like most here are doing, I recommend you pick up "Free to Choose". Please read the first 15 pages (arbitrary number). If you're not interested, put it down, but I really hope you read it through. Your arguments presently hold no water here as you don't understand the opposing view.

[@freesk8]

Yay, Reason! Yay, Ayn Rand! Yay Robert Poole!

[@Avidcomp]

Sadly since this posting, the west has gone mad. Of course Ayn's issue with Libertarians was that they could not grasp the essential need for a cohesive objective morality, and they see the solution as political compromise. Well. She was right. You Libertarians are just going to have to suck it up and take metaphysics/epistemology seriously. They are the foundations for objective ethics and politics from there would just fall into place.

[@OlderAnimal]

"In communism/socialism, people have first dibs on the fruit of your labor." Explain this further.

[@MicroBalrog]

No we haven't. GWB introduced more new regulations than any President in the last 40 years.

[@kev3d]

There seems to be a thought that there is an "end game" where ALL diseases can be cured and ALL energy needs can be met that there would be a utopia and a lack of a need for capitalism. But even if the above were true, there would still be an economy of limited time and resources. No matter the abundance, there will only ever be one Mona Lisa, thus time to see it must be rationed out by some kind of price system and through ownership and trade of such limited resources.

[@OlderAnimal]

Duurr hurrr hurr!!!!! :S Mag. Close your mind. You're crapping all over the internet.

[@ariearie7953]

That opening tune got me ready to listen to the history of Rome podcast.

[@jodark]

Lol. How? Because the only alternative is some form of slavery.

[@ronpaul101789]

Thank you for your intelligent and insightful comment.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

Other way around.

[@G0dspelronin]

The alternative these people are looking for is everything for "free". They want government housing, food, and jobs (maybe jobs), clothes, etc. Its all gonna be free because our blessed Uncle Sam and his church choir will provide it for them. I am purely evil and would like to build my own destiny and work toward my own goals uninterrupted by anyone wearing a suit and tie telling me I owe them anything because someone I don't know legislated it. Long live the evils of capitalism and freedom!lol

[@brazenhubris]

My influence is the one that's needed today. Check out my essays.