How full of s___ is Thomas Franks? Let me count the ways.

Go read his column on Libertarian non-profits in the Wall Street Journal. Then, email him about his intellectual dishonesty. Send him this link if you like.

The main thrust of Franks’ argument is the apparent contradiction of self-interested libertarians working in the not-for-profit sector. He writes:

And therein lies his dilemma. Almost by definition, our young libertarian’s job is to celebrate the profit motive from the offices of a not-for-profit organization. He is subsidized, in other words, to hymn the unsubsidized way of life. Rugged individualism may be his creed, but a rugged individual he ain’t.

The first problem is obvious. Celebrating the profit motive is not the defining characteristic of libertarianism.

Sure there are some libertarians sporting t-shirts branded “Greed is Good” or “Capitalist Pig.” But this a political statement and is interpreted narrowly only by the narrow minded. To argue that those who “celebrate” the profit motive believe making money is the pinnacle of human experience is like arguing those who brandish a Darwin Fish actually believe Darwin is God.

The good of markets and profits does not reduce the “goodness” of other non-material pursuits like art and philosophy. Even Ayn Rand understood that. One of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, which Franks clearly hasn’t read, is a philosopher. (I’m not arguing that there aren’t problems with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, there certainly are, but there’s more to libertarianism than an angry russian.)

Second, the clever little paradox Franks thinks he’s found does more to prove the libertarian’s point then it does to undermine it. Why is profit good? Why is capitalism great? Because people ARE self-interested. The moral value is irrelevant because even morals exist within the realm of self-interest, broadly contrued. All things being equal a person is more likely to take care of HIS self, of HIS family, and of HIS possessions, than he his someone else’s. This is what is meant by self-interested.

The fact that even those working for a “grand cause,” those most committed to “high mindedness,” still feel the tug of this self-interest is proof of how powerful it is. To deny this is foolish and/or tyrannical, and capitalism is the only system of organization that does not deny this.

Citing Daniel Brooks, Franks laments about modern society forcing people to sell out:

By skewing society’s rewards so lopsidedly to the top in the country’s richest cities, Mr. Brook writes, the tax-reducing, market-minded economic policies of the last few decades have priced all sorts of high-minded occupations to the bottom of the middle class: teaching, the arts, and, of course, nonprofit work.

He goes on:

In traditional sellout theory there is always some grand cause or principle that is being exchanged for immediate gain – artistic independence, for example, or the fate of the panda, trembling piteously before the onrushing bulldozers of modernity.

But what is it that libertarians are selling when they accept the fat paychecks of corporate America? The noble principle of self interest? The utopia of the market itself? Will the workings of supply and demand really seize up if some young Ayn Randette chooses to forsake, say, the Cato Institute and instead help ExxonMobil pile up the pelf?

What Franks is really up to in these two passages is pretty obvious. And since Franks doesn’t hesitate to besmirch the motives of libertarians working non-profit (like me), I won’t hesitate to besmirch his.

Franks is bitter that that the market doesn’t reward “high-minded” writers (like Franks) on the same level it does small-minded men who happen to run successful companies. I understand this bitterness and don’t begrudge him for it. Franks’ sin though, is in allowing his envy to turn him into a tyrant who wants to remake society in his image, to ensure rewards are given in accordance with the good as HE sees it.

Tyranny is exactly what libertarians in non-profit jobs are trying to prevent.