Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comTHE REAL ROOT OF EVIL 105action. She was unwilling to admit he had a point: “When and how didgovernments have ‘powers for good?’ ” Some of her comments echoedthe same disillusionment she felt with the fatalistic libertarians of theWillkie campaign, who underappreciated man’s capacity for creationand growth. When Hayek spoke about the needs of different peoplecompeting for available resources Rand retorted, “They don’t competefor the available resources—they create the resources. Here’s the socialistthinking again.” Hayek didn’t truly understand either competition orcapitalism, she concluded. 14Rand also objected to Hayek’s definition of individualism, which shefelt lacked moral grounding. Using wording Rand herself favored, Hayekdefined individualism as “respect for the individual man qua man”and rooted it in Christianity, classical antiquity, and the Renaissance.However, he next referred to an individual’s own sphere, “however narrowlythat may be circumscribed.” This qualification, like his willingnessto tolerate limited government programs, outraged Rand. To her it wasproof of why individualism had failed as a political ideology: “It had noreal base, no moral base. This is why my book is needed.” Hayek wouldhave been surprised at Rand’s contention that his individualism had nomoral base. His work was motivated by a deep sense of spiritual crisis,and for an organization of economists the Mont Pelerin Society wasunusually sensitive to questions of morality. Hayek originally wanted toname his group the Acton-Tocqueville Society, in reference to two greatCatholic thinkers. 15But Rand and Hayek had very different understandings of what wasmoral. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek criticized people of goodwilland their cherished ideals, insisting that the West examine the ethicalassumptions that underlay its descent into barbarism. As Rand detected,this was only a surface critique of altruism. Hayek also believed that arevival of traditional morals would save the West, and he was receptiveto Christian values (although cagey about his personal religiousbeliefs). By contrast, she believed it was altruism itself that had broughtEurope to the brink of destruction. At the end of Hayek’s second chapterRand summarized her thoughts: “Nineteenth Century Liberalism madethe mistake of associating liberty, rights of man etc. with the ideas of‘fighting for the people,’ ‘for the downtrodden,’ ‘for the poor,’ etc. Theymade it an altruistic movement. But altruism is collectivism. That is why