Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comIT USUALLY BEGINS WITH AYN RAND 251Buffalo. Childs admired Rand but questioned her stance on governmentas he gravitated toward an anarchist position. With his letter, sentto Rand on July 4, 1969, Childs repudiated Objectivism and debutedas the enfant terrible of anarcho-capitalism. Boldly Childs opened witha straightforward declaration: “The purpose of this letter is to convertyou to free market anarchism.” Relying heavily on Objectivist conceptsand Randian words and phrases, Childs argued that Rand’s advocacy ofa limited state was contradicted by her own philosophy. Her told her,“Your political philosophy cannot be maintained without contradiction,that, in fact, you are advocating the maintenance of an institution—thestate—which is a moral evil.” Beyond offering an ethical critique, Childsalso turned Rand’s terminology against her, arguing that her idea of alimited government that did not initiate force was a “floating abstraction.”According to Childs, all governments must initiate force to surviveas governments and maintain their monopoly on coercion. And if theinitiation of force was forbidden in both the Objectivist and libertarianworlds, then the state itself must be opposed. Childs lectured Rand,“Your approach to the matter is not yet radical, not yet fundamental: itis the existence of the state itself which must be challenged by the new radicals.It must be understood that the state is an unnecessary evil.” 10 Randwas unimpressed by Childs’s logic. Her only response was to cancel hissubscription to The Objectivist.Although Rand vehemently opposed anarchism, many adherentsinsisted that anarchism was a logical outgrowth of Objectivism.Surveying the student right, the Western World Review observed, “Herphilosophy and ethic appear to be functioning as a campus way stationor half-way house on the road to the anarchism she opposes.” 11 Inmany ways, the new vogue for anarchism had the quality of an Oedipalrevolt against Rand. Anarchism was a way to resolve the contradictionsthat many found in Rand’s political philosophy. How was it possibleto oppose the initiation of force (a key Randian tenet), yet still defenda minimal state? R. W. Bradford, later an editor of Liberty magazine,remembered, “A few were willing to accept her obfuscations on the issue,but the overwhelming majority were unwilling to evade the problem.Virtually all these people became anarchists.” 12 To many libertarianstutored in Rand’s absolutist style of thought, the steps were simple: thestate was bad, so why not abolish it entirely? Childs put it this way: “As