Ayn Rand was fundamentally wrong. She claimed that her books were all about the strength of the individual, but if you read them, in none of them did an individual succeed on his own. Her heroes succeeded as a part of a voluntary community.
And that’s where she was wrong, and where the libertarian attack on collectivism so often goes wrong. The problem with collectivism isn’t the group, it’s the coercion.
The communitarians aren’t evil in wanting to build a sense of community, they are evil in that they confuse the community with the state and advocate using the power of the state to force individuals into community.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist collective, provided that the individual members are free to join, and are free to leave.
The strength of a society is in its voluntary associations.
“The strength of a society is in its voluntary associations.”
Actually, that’s exactly what she said. People enter transactions for their mutual benefit. Otherwise, it’s coercion.
Ayn Rand was fundamentally wrong. She claimed that her books were all about the strength of the individual, but if you read them, in none of them did an individual succeed on his own. Her heroes succeeded as a part of a voluntary community.
Go back and read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”. We are all pursuing selfish interests and by doing so the community is served. Try organizing a community sans self interest and you create hell on earth (i.e., gulags, concentration camps, re-education camps, etc.). Rand, like Smith, recognized that man pursuing his selfish interests creates greatness and demands equality. Try to get to equality via any other philosophy and you will find a society governed by the stick with no carrot.
You picked up on a problem with Rand’s view point but calling it fundamentally wrong is an over reach. She did illustrate the need for community so she wasn’t against it. Like you said the success of their community was partially the result of voluntary association. But it also rested on each person’s rational, honest self-awareness so that relationships and transactions were based on understanding of relative worth of contributions. No one is forced to exchange. Without that foundation in a community, human nature will introduce politics which leads to someone trying to capture more value from the community through some means other than a free exchange.
Government seizing property from one group of people and giving it to another cannot in anyway shape or form be considered Christian charity. In fact, it robs the giver and recipient of the benefits intended by God from the act of giving. Voluntary giving to help another brings a joy to the giver and reinforces the giver’s gratitude and dependence on God. Accepting charity should be with humble gratitude to the giver and God. Knowing that someone else, with a face, sacrificed to help you is uplifting and inspiring to better your own condition. A government entitlement destroys most of those benefits.
Government transfers of property are the result of people shirking the virtue of charity and wanting someone else to help others so the don’t feel guilty when they don’t do it themselves.
Well said.
It's not about being able to succeed on your own, it is about seeking and obtaining success guided by your own best interest... even if that best interest is exercising your own choice to serve another. The "voluntary" part is the key.
My first exposure to Rand was Fountainhead. Howard could not complete a building without a client, but his internal moral compass and integrity prevented him from pandering to clients that did not appreciate his work. He chose to work in a quarry rather than sell out.
Self interest and selfishness are taken in the wrong context when people discuss Rand. The other key component in her characters was an unyielding moral compass. The villains in Atlas personified the ugly side of self interest and selfishness in that they were willing to take rather than trade.
There are lots of examples in Atlas Shrugs of people striving to help their friends. Consider Ragnar Danesgeld.
What Rand's point is, is that these people VOLUNTARILY help those they love, rather than helping because they are made to feel that they "owe" their labor.
Jesus went to the Cross because He CHOSE to give himself, not because anybody browbeat Him into it, saying he had a debt to the sinners which could only be paid by sacrificing Himself. That's much of Rand's point.