Rand’s Atlas: a myth for America

Character assassination, the only tool of those who can't argue on the facts.

Let me know if I have this right. The author mentions two problems with laissez-faire capitalism: one, that some businesspeople aren't good, and two, that children could be forced into jobs, including prostitution. Is that it? If so, both are straw-man arguments.

In the kind of society that Ayn Rand advocated in Atlas Shrugged, government's sole responsibility is to protect individual rights. No one, including children, would be forced to do anything against their will. It is our present society - one that embraces compulsion - that risks the kind of atrocities the author warns against.

It is also a highly-regulated society that allows dishonest business people to profit from their misdeeds, since, over time, they become directed by bureaucracies, rather than customers and voluntary regulatory associations. Their focus becomes the pleasure of bureaucrats, rather than their customers. As an example, consider the service at your local cable company and compare that highly-regulated company's service to that of your local dry cleaner or restaurant, whether locally owned or part of a national chain. In almost all cases, the less-regulated company provides better customer service at more competitive prices.

Even more important, though, laissez-faire capitalism is based on the morality of rational self-interest, which embraces values such as rationality, honesty, and productiveness. The kind of regulated mixed economy that the author apparently advocates is a combination of two moralities: the rational self-interest of capitalism and the self-sacrifice of socialism. That combination is unstable, and risks devolving over time into a totalitarian state, as Germany did in the first part of the 20th century.

The only proper society is one very close to the goal of America's founding fathers, one supported by a government who's sole job is to protect individuals' rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Every negative article I read about the philosophy of Ayn Rand has the same components, this is no exception albeit with the omission of Alan Greenspan as the contrived bete noir of libertarianism.

I very much doubt the writer that this commentator has actually read Atlas Shrugged as the piece reeks of the superficial dismissiveness of the uninformed. Happily the first posts here have done an excellent job of clarifying objectivism and I have little to add.

When a statist hears the name "Ayn Rand" the reaction is often visceral. The fevered imagination conjures up a lawless society with giant corporations enslaving employees, widespread destruction to the environment and incredibly in this analysis...child prostitution. Perhaps a re-reading of invidudual rights is required?

Ayn Rand did not write Atlas Shrugged as a means of teaching her philosophy, but as a means of expressing her "sense of life." And Atlas is a thrilling emotional experience to read. I point this out for those who might be intrigued by the controversy swirling 'round this novel, but are hesitating to undertake such a "Heavy Book." Boy, do you have a surprise in store for you. Atlas is the ultimate page-turner.

But more than that, if you're the kind of persons who holds his own life as his ultimate value, you'll be swept away emotionally by her heroic vision of the human potential.

Ayn Rand is chiefly a proponent of Reason. As she so aptly defined in her philosophic non-fiction writings, Reason is man’s basic means of survival. It is clear that production is essential for the survival of mankind.

To be profitable is to be rewarded for the act of production. Profit is inailenably linked to efficient production. I.e. fewer resources required for that produced

Man's sullied history with socialism highlights the fact that if there is no profit, there will be no long term sustainable production.

A man needs to have an incentive to produce over and above the costs of production or sufficient effort will not be undertaken to make the production efficient. Production resulting in mere sustenance does not make available to all the marvelous benefits of a division of labor society, one so well described in "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, so many years ago.

The following passage gives an idea why Ayn Rand's work has been so influential for so many years:
"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .
"Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind."
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17, available at http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html.

Rand's philosophy addresses fundamental issues of human nature, survival, and happiness.

Others have said exactly what I planned to say. You need to read the book before jumping to a ridiculous review which point out that you just do not understand what the book is about.

Try reading it with an open mind if you would really like to understand the message of the book.

*Chris Benson is the socialist editorial board member.

Why does he advocate the use of force against innocents?

After all, that's what taxation and regulation is.

But seriously though, where do these socialists come from? Is this what they are teaching in the public schools?

Thank you, commentators, esp. Anonymous 05/05/2009 10:13pm and Tedd — my thoughts exactly.

This article was pitiful.

Mr. Benson has not read the book and if the university has any ethics, he should be fired. I am glad to see so many people commenting and being outraged by his misrepesentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The author states that in an Objectivist world, "The government’s only job is 'to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.'"

Mr. Benson then goes on to tell us that "pimping a consenting 10-year-old is as [legitimate] as the local manufacturer of antibiotics and pediatric vaccines".

It's downright disgusting and immoral for Mr. Benson to portray child prostitution a peaceful trade free of force and coercion. Furthermore, the idea that a 10 year old child should be able to consent to sell his or her body is an underage rape fantasy imagined by Benson and is certainly not promoted by any Objectivists.

The argument that sexual freedom between two consenting adults naturally leads to pedophilia and child exploitation is a hackneyed straw-man that has been used by gay-bashing Christians for years to attack homosexuals.

Yes, Mr. Benson has provided a good, thoughtful article on the problems with turning completely to Rand's philosophy. Many of the posts here seem to think that one cannot read Rand and still disagree with her. I assure you all, one can.

Don't let these pseudo-intellectual posts bother you Mr. Benson. The volume of this attack is a testament to the quality of your opinion.

"(Rand was no pioneer; she merely used fiction to regurgitate Adam Smith)."

Of course, unsubstantiated assertions are the last resort of those who have no substance to their argument. Ad hominems anyone?

"Therein lies the problem with the libertarian (or objectivist, if you prefer) philosophy. The way they tell it, government can do no good; government unduly interferes with people’s lives and businesses. "

Once again, you must learn to actually read what one writes. I did not say that the government can do no good. No, I'm sure many have benefited from government programs. The problem that statists tend to neglect, is how does government achieve this good? The government does not produce wealth. The wealth that it uses to provide it's chosen good to some is merely taken from others. If the government has the right to take property from some, then those from whom it takes have no right to their own property. You cannot posit a society based on equal rights of citizens before the law, if the government claims the right to abrogate some citizens' rights for the sake of others. Such abrogation is an interference, of course. Yes, it may do good for some people, but is that worth the evil it does to the ones who must provide the goods and services demanded by the government? Capitalism is a system whereby people can provide services according to their judgment and conscience without the threat of government coercion. The assumption that good can only be accomplished through the coercion of elected officials is a fallacy.

"Yet if the “underlying premise of capitalism is that people’s choices are free choices, that they are free to make the decisions which optimize their ability to be happy,” then what of the robber barons, the Ponzi schemers and profiteers? If Hank Reardon’s primary goal is to make a profit, and that makes him happy, then he would have to do so on the backs of other companies and people. A monopoly would ensue, and prices would become unaffordable. His foundry would pollute. There’s something to say about individual liberties and competition. But under a corporatist state, the underclass cannot worry about government intervention because it struggles to put food on the table."

The robber barons would not have been possible without government cronyism. In a free market there exists no mechanism whereby a corporation could establish a monopoly. If it were to sell merchandise at a price that outpaced production costs, then there would be nothing to prevent another company from producing a similar product at a reduced price and thereby undercutting it. The only way monopolies are possible is if the government shelters them. Go look at the history of Amtrak, the telephone companies, etc. In a capitalist society, the government's function is to prevent the use of coercion by businesses or individuals. As long as government is fulfilling it's proper function, then such a destructive crystallization of economic power would be impossible.

Also, the assumption that Hank Rearden would have to build his fortune on the backs of others begs the question. You assume that it is impossible to create wealth, and so therefore it is. On the contrary, compare the economy a hundred years ago with the economy today and you'll see that the act of creation adds value to the process. As for environmental concerns, one of the functions of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. If a business was poisoning people's water and air, then they would be violating the rights of the citizens affected. As such, the community could demand adherence to certain standards of operation. I think this is well within an objectivist interpretation of law. No, the true extremists are the ones who claim that we cannot trust people to be free, but for some inexplicable reason can somehow trust a congress of strangers to rule over our lives for us.

"There is a direct contravention between the mission of a business and the public good. That’s why coal companies continue to pollute; why food producers continue to do shoddy inspections; why banks began selling mortgage-backed securities; why we are in the deepest recession in at least 25 years. The very fact that businesses must operate under statutory constraints to prevent them from say, collusion, underscores the idea that government regulation is not necessarily socialist or evil. Unfettered self-interest, however, produces a framework for evil. Regulation is necessary."

Once again you beg the question. You assume your conclusion in your premise. A business which alienates the public, is not serving its best interests and is bound to fail when faced with competition from a company that honors its clients' wishes. No business can ignore the satisfaction of its customers. The only way that such a state of affairs can exist is when it is protected by the government. All the examples you list, are situations which could have only come to be with government intervention. Freddie Mac and Fannie May were government run and subsidized firms who in conjunction with legislation motivating the proliferation of sub-prime loans repackaged them into apparently high-grade securities. If the government hadn't been playing god with the housing market and interest rates, the bubble wouldn't have happened and we might have been able to postpone the current crisis. (Ron Paul predicted the collapse of the housing market years ago.) Food producers have increasingly produced shoddy product because everyone has come to believe that the government stamp of safety is sufficient for trust and have ceased to worry about the individual responsibility of products to meet expectations. Responsibility was assumed by government and thus it is relinquished to government. In a free market, where businesses are unsheltered and unsubsidized, a business cannot afford to have shoddy quality. It will be over-run by its higher quality competitors. And once again, if a business poisons its consumers, then that is fraud and murder and punishable under any government. Only the regulatory bureaucracy is not needed in a free one.

No sir, the only irony is that you have already decided that you cannot be wrong, and so therefore choose to ignore the evidence before you and the flaws of your own Cartesian circular logic. Logic, is fundamentally the art of non-contradictory identification. If you cannot point out the contradiction, then you do not have a counter-argument. Where are my contradictions? I have already pointed out yours.