328 Chapter 13
epistemologicalprinciples,we wouldhaveto say:neverhaveso manyowedso muchto
one man”^23 (emphasesRand’s). For that reason,Randconcludes,“If thereis a philosophi-
cal Atlaswhocarriesthe wholeof Westerncivilizationon his shoulders,it is Aristotle....
Whateverintellectualprogressmenhaveachievedrestson his achievements.”^24
Conversely,we discernthat thereis a chainof influencegoingin the otherdirectionas
well.By Jean-JacquesRousseau’s ownadmission,Rousseauwasinfluencedby Plato.^25
PlatoalsoinfluencedImmanuelKant.Rousseau,in turn,influencedKant,^26 KarlMarx,^27
Rev.T. RobertMalthus,^28 and the FrenchRevolution’s MaximilianRobespierre.Rousseau
and Kantinfluencedthe Germanromanticistschoolof philosophy.Germanromanticism
influencedthe authoritarianismof Germanyin the 1800sand1900sandalsothe early-
twentieth-centuryU.S.Progressivemovement.It wasnot HerbertSpencerbut Kantwho
influencedHoustonChamberlain,whowenton to promoteracismin Germanyin the
1920s.Kant,Hegel,the romanticists,andthe nineteenth-centurysocialistsWilliamGod-
win and CharlesFourierinfluencedJoseph-Arthurde Gobineauand Chamberlain.Gobi-
neauandChamberlaininfluencedthe ThirdReich’s eugenicists.Eugenicistsandroman-
tics influencedJacquesDerridaand the postmodernistsof the twentiethand twenty-first
centuries.Robespierreandthe otherJacobinsservedas an inspirationto the nineteenth-
centurysocialistmovement.In kind,boththe nineteenth-centurysocialistmovementand
the romanticistsinfluencedthe politicalLeft of the twentiethand twenty-firstcenturies.T.
RobertMalthus,Marx,and socialistsinfluencedthe modernpopulationcontroland anti-
globalizationmovements.WhateverG. E. Moore’s argumentsagainstthemare, Kantand
DavidHumeimplicitlyinfluencedG. E. Moore,particularlyregardinghis claimsabouta
NaturalisticFallacy.G. E. Moore^29 and Malthus^30 influencedJohnMaynardKeynes,and
Keynesprovidedan obtuserationalizationfor the tax-and-spendregulatory-entitlement
statepoliciesthathaveburdenedgovernmentsthroughoutthe twentiethcenturyand
continueto misleadthemat the dateof thiswriting.Thus,throughtheirtenets,such
philosophersas Platoand Rousseauand Kantand Marxhaveindirectlycontributedto the
governismthathas menacedWesterncivilizationin the twentiethcenturyand continues
to menaceit as of this writing.
Therehaveindeedbeenphilosopherswhoadvocatedlaissezfairebut failedto provide
adequateinductivejustificationsfor laissezfaire.DavidHumeand Frédéric Bastiatcome
to mind.For laissezfaireto be on a soundfootingin philosophy,it needsan adequate,
inductivelyrationalbasis,suchas whatAynRandprovidedin her writings.Conversely,
whensocietiesembraceepistemologicalmethodsotherthanstrictobservationalrational-
ity, theyleavethemselvesdirelyvulnerableto oppression.To reviewthe pointfromBook
One,it is dangerousto presumethata propositioncan be theoreticallypossiblein the
absenceof observationalsupport.Shouldwe concedethata propositioncan be theoreti-
callypossiblein the absenceof observationalsupport,a would-bedictatorcan declare
thathis arbitraryassertions—includinghis assertionthathis willshouldbe imposedby
law—can be validlyacceptedat face value.Andoncewe believethat a propositioncan be
acceptedin the absenceof evidence,we tacitlyconveythatour logicalargumentsagainst
the would-bedictatorcannotwhollynullifythe would-bedictator’s declarations.Again,
recallingBookOne,considerDavidHumeandImmanuelKant.Thesetwophilosophers
arguedin favorof liberalrepublicanismand free internationalcommerce.Yet, on account
of theirsuccessorsbelievingHumeand Kantto haveinvalidatedobservationalreasonas
a meansof obtaininganyobjectiveknowledge—including knowledgeaboutethics—
HumeandKantindirectlyunderminedindividualliberty.As we recallfromchapter9,
Kant’s successors—JohannGottfriedHerderandJohannGottliebFichte—believedthat
HumeandKanthadsuccessfullyinvalidatedany acceptanceof inductivereason.Then
Herder,Fichte,andothersuccessorspointedout thatit is throughobservationalreason
thatany personascertainsthathe or she is an individualwhosevolitionalconsciousness