Free-minds-and-markets university in Guatemala

[Greybird]

From the Los Angeles Times — I kid you not — the front-page "Column One" feature on 6 June 2008:

Leftist thinking left off the syllabus

Francisco Marroquin University is a bastion of libertarianism, drawing

potshots from both sides of the political spectrum.

By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Guatemala City — Leftist ideology may be gaining ground in Latin America. But it will never set foot on the manicured lawns of Francisco Marroquin University.

For nearly 40 years, this private college has been a citadel of laissez-faire economics. Here, banners quoting "The Wealth of Nations" author Adam Smith — he of the powdered wig and invisible hand — flutter over the campus food court.

Every undergraduate, regardless of major, must study market economics and the philosophy of individual rights embraced by the U.S. founding fathers, including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A sculpture commemorating Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is affixed to the school of business. Students celebrated the novel's 50th anniversary last year with an essay contest. The $200 cash prize reinforced the book's message that society should reward capitalist go-getters who create wealth and jobs, not punish them with taxes and regulations.

"The poor are not poor just because others are rich," said Manuel Francisco Ayau Cordon, a feisty octogenarian businessman, staunch anti-communist and founder of the school. "It's not a zero-sum game."

Welcome to Guatemala's Libertarian U. Ayau opened the college in 1972, fed up with what he viewed as the "socialist" instruction being imparted at San Carlos University of Guatemala, the nation's largest institution of higher learning. He named the new school for a colonial-era priest who worked to liberate native Guatemalans from exploitation by Spanish overlords. [...]

It's almost to be expected that the Times would use a misleading title — founder Ayau, and the school's bent, are indeed libertarian and individualist, neither "left" nor "right" in reductive political terms. Yet the rest is well worth reading, believe me, at the link above. Five photos are available here.

I'd like to point out, though, what's implicit in another photo of Ayau, one not in the linked gallery, which only appeared fully in the local printed editions of the Times, and which I've scanned:

Note the "writers and intellectuals" in the mural behind him, one that I'd heard about from visitors to Marroquin, but not yet seen. Almost literally cheek-by-jowl, we have this array (those whom I can identify), among many others: Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, Tibor Machan, Milton Friedman (behind Ayau), Robert Nozick, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, Patrick Buchanan, Roy Childs. And Ludwig von Mises is certainly in there somewhere.

They're not all cut from the same intellectual cloth, to be sure. They have, or had, wildly varying interests and emphases in their writing. They each had, or have, weak points and contradictions.

Yet here's my point: From the perspective of this talented man in Guatemala, and in the outlook of the institution he founded, they all are valuable thinkers in the fight for free minds and markets.

They all came from the U.S. milieu, and, again almost literally, they inhabit corners of the same canvas. That is, from Ayau's perspective, a thousand miles and more apart. And in terms of the wider battles of our time, why shouldn't he see them that way?

The internecine battles among those debating finer points can, and does, soak up far too much energy and verbiage. More tragically, it divides the audience for intellectuals that can, and do, all have valuable perspectives in the fight for reason, individualism, and liberty. It takes the distance of an Ayau to see what pulls such innovators together, despite their differences.

What this implies for those who glory in sectarian battles, in any corner of this broad canvas, ought to be obvious. Maybe this mural can remind them that what draws the genuine lovers of reason and liberty together is far, FAR more important than any doctrinal differences that pull them apart.

[Chris Grieb]

Ed Hudgin's last post about TAS's Summer Seminar noted that several scholarship students will be from Francisco Marroquin University.

You can still sign up and meet these interesting young people.

[georgedonnelly]

It's interesting that such an institution exists in Guatemala - but not the US of Europe.

[Barbara Branden]

Steve: "The internecine battles among those debating finer points can, and does, soak up far too much energy and verbiage. More tragically, it divides the audience for intellectuals that can, and do, all have valuable perspectives in the fight for reason, individualism, and liberty. It takes the distance of an Ayau to see what pulls such innovators together, despite their differences.

"What this implies for those who glory in sectarian battles, in any corner of this broad canvas, ought to be obvious. Maybe this mural can remind them that what draws the genuine lovers of reason and liberty together is far, FAR more important than any doctrinal differences that pull them apart."

Steve, I both understand and sympathize with your position, and with Ayau focusing on what draws lovers of reason and liberty together and choosing to pose in front of portraits of those he believes ably defend the cause he has adopted. lBut there is a problem. Some of the people in the mural take stands that not only fail to further the cause of reason and liberty, but instead positively damage it.

Let me give you a couple of example of this problem in other areas.. Consider two organizations that can be said to support Objectivism and attempt to spread its ideas: The Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society, But what divides them is enormous, And ARI, because of its excesses, its aggressive militancy, its dogmatism and cultishness, has in many respects given Objectivism a bad name and has damaged the cause which it came into existence to foster. And this is so despite the worthwhile and valuable things that ATI does. The actions and teachings of true believers will never substantially penetrate the mainstream of America.

Or consider Obama's relationship to his cause, that of political liberalism. It could be said that he and, say, Joe Lieberman, both support a liberal point of view in politics. Yet Obama, because of his association with and support of crackpots such as Reverand Wright and anti-Americans such as his terrorist friends, may lose the election that once appeared to be a shoo-in and may severely damage the cause of liberalism.

Similarly with some of the figures in the mural. I think we do our cause harm if we uncritically support all those who say they speak in its name, if they also uphold ideas which contradict the ideals of liberty and reason. I don't expect you to agree with what I'm about to say, but it makes my point nevertheless: I am convinced that were I to support someone like Pat Buchanan I would be betraying the cause to which I am devoted. I would say, similarly, that if I failed to criticize Objectivist ideas that I believe are importantly wrong, I would be disloyal t those aspects of Objectivism in which I passionately believe.

Finally, it surely is possible to recognize and support the rational aspects of a given advocate's position, while simultaneously strongly criticizing and rejecting its irrational aspects. And in some cases, to say that a given advocate is so riddled with contradictions that it makes no sense to count him among defenders of liberty.

Barbara

P.S. I can't help observing that, at times, you have failed to practice what you're preaching, when you become enraged and insulting because of disagreements with those who are fighting, in essence, for the cause in which you believe.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, Barbara, but this doesn't mean the school is doing things wrong. The central focus of Objectivism is ethics. For libertarianism it's politics/economics. If they're teaching all that, independent minds will sort it out. A lot has to do with interests. Roy Childs was a libertarian who knew Objectivism. I think most libertarians only know of Objectivism. But where one settles has to do more with that basic focus than anything else I can think of. A libertarian has much more real-life contemporary material to wallow around in to his heart's content than anyone trying to get a handle on morality and the totality of a vertically integrated philosophy. He has a lot more time for libertarianism is also a hell of a lot easier to learn--there ain't much--and harder for a guru to get his hands on. Libertarianism is messy, Objectivism can be hell because too many Objectivists have never reconciled the philosophy with their own, personal, necessary individualism. Ayn Rand celebrated individualism much more in The Fountainhead than in Atlas Shrugged which was much more--obviously--philosophical. John Galt became the Objectivist prototype. To become an Objectivist was to become as much like John Galt as one could. One can't do that from inside out for it's you on the inside, not Galt, but one could put on Galt clothes and at least put on a good appearance. I've always regreted that AS wasn't structured so that Francisco slapped John instead of Hank slapping Francisco. AS should have been messy, not that it could have been; if you lose control of such a literary enterprise it's likely to crash and burn. AS is all about control and it must have shaped Ayn as much as she shaped it.

--Brant

Edited June 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

Brant: "Yes, Barbara, but this doesn't mean the school is doing things wrong."

I don't think the school is doing things wrong. That's why I wrote: "Steve, I both understand and sympathize with your position, and with Ayau focusing on what draws lovers of reason and liberty together and choosing to pose in front of portraits of those he believes ably defend the cause he has adopted." But I think Steve and others would be doing something wrong if they forgot and/or ignored the crucial differences that separate some of the people in the mural.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Similarly with some of the figures in the mural. I think we do our cause harm if we uncritically support all those who say they speak in its name, if they also uphold ideas which contradict the ideals of liberty and reason. I don't expect you to agree with what I'm about to say, but it makes my point nevertheless: I am convinced that were I to support someone like Pat Buchanan I would be betraying the cause to which I am devoted. I would say, similarly, that if I failed to criticize Objectivist ideas that I believe are importantly wrong, I would be disloyal t those aspects of Objectivism in which I passionately believe.

Barbara -

Pat Buchanan? I didn't notice that picture earlier. Ouch! How did he get in there?

Bill P (imagine the Dante-like exercise involved in deciding how far from the center from the picture various figures would need to be...)